Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1881-05-03
WEST VIRGINIA va THE BANK
OF CHARLESTON.


We have = lengthy communication
from Charleston, giving the history OF
the case OF the State Of West Virginia
Va the Merchsnts' Bank Of Charleston,
and the points in the recent decision
rendered by Judge GUTHRIE.
The general facts In the case are SO
well understood by the public that 1t is
not necessary to republish them in de-
tail, and as to the decision, the one
point reached by the Court, viz: "That
the plaintiff, the State, take nothing by
its bill, is about as conclusive as several
pages Of the opinion could make 1t.
After vigorous prosecution and de-
tense extending through more than five
years, this case ends leaving the State
out OF pocket as against the sureties,
not only for the principal, but the inter-
est and costs OF prosecution.
As to the prospects OF the State on an
appeal, our correspondent presents a
view OF the case according to which 1t
would seem that the State may hazard
the Judgment which it has obtained
against the bank if an appeal be taken.
II is stated that when the judgment
against the bank was taken by the plain
tiff, the bank was powerless and speech
less, under an injunction, and did not
and could not defend. and the sureties
only defended for themselves. That in-
Junction was IN part brought about by
the plaintiffs prosecution OF It's Auditor
and Treasurer for dealing with the de-
posts in said hank. The plaintiff, there
fore, had things its own way, and by
mistake, it must be supposed, took judg-
ment against the bank for a much larger
amount than il was entitled to. That
judgment is illegal and unjust, and liable
TO be recovered il properly appealed
from. The plaintiff, instead Of correct
ing il, seems in love with the maxim OF
"keep all you've got ard get all you
can" and endeavored to set up that
Judgment as an estoppel against the
sureties in their defense. Should the
plaintiff appeal, the move may result in
the reversal of its judgment against the
bank, as it must inevitably do, il the de-
PENDANTS shall take the proper steps by
motion or counter errors on appeal.
And then farewell to the plaintiffs
debt! For the plaintiff, like the dog in
his greed that dropped his meat to catch
its image reflected in the water,
will have lost not only the costs
and expenses Of its prolonged litiga-
ton, but its judgment aud execu-
ton liens on the assets real and person.
al of its debtor bank, and the priorities
acquired thereby. And all, for the WIS.,
ionary idea OF chance skeleton judg-
ment against the sureties, whose indi.
yidual creditors, when done with them,
will have left light picking for the plain
tiff, at the end OF this litigation; for one
result OF this suit against suretles mas
been to precipitate their Individual
creditors to sue them and press for pri.
critics and security against apprehen-
sion OF ultimate danger.
The assets and liabilities OF the bank
were ascertained and reported by a
master commissioner in the injunction
suit, TO amount on June SOth, 1877, as
follows, viz: Liabilities, S56,3l4 O6;
assets, SS5, 1928, of which S29,045.S5
are reported as doubtful.
This is the situation as We gather
from the correspondence referred to.
There may be another side to the case
which would make better showing for
the State.