Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1881-05-05
THE STATE VS.. MERCHANTS
BANK AT CHARLESTON.

a communication sent TO us from
Charleston in relation to the suit OF the
State OF West Virginia against the sure
ties OF the Merchants Bank OF Charles
tor, in which final judgment was recent
" rendered, on demurrer to the dec
laration, in favor Of the defendants; and
from which judgment a writ OF error
has already been allowed by the Su-
preme Court OF Appeals, now in session
in this city.
In the article referred to We stated
that probably statement from those
representing the State might put the
matter OF this suit in a more favorable
light to the State, and it seems that in
this respect our conjecture was correct.
We learn from the Auditors office
that this suit was brought by the STATE
against the Merchants Bank OF Charles
and its sureties, on the contract execut.
ed BY them to secure the moneys
OF the State which were on
deposit when the contract was executed
AMI which might thereafter be deposited
therein, under the laws in force regu-
lating the deposit OF State funds. In
the declaration it was claimed that, at
the time OF the institution OF the suit,
there was on deposit something over
s37 900, for which checks had been
drawn by Che proper officers, but which
checks were returned unpaid. The suit
was brought to recover the money, and
process was issued and served on all the
defendants, including the Merchants
Bank OF Charleston. There was no ap.
pearance in the suit by the bank, and
judgment was therefore entered against
it for the amount proved to be due,
which amount, according to the books
OF the bank, was over $4,000. This
Judgment has never been disturbed.
The sureties appeared to the action and
demurred to the declaration and each
count, OF which there were three
This demurrer was twice argued
very deliberately, both orally and
ia writing, before Hon. JOSEPH
SMITH and he overruled the demurrer.
Afterwards the defendants introduced
numerous special pleas which they de-
sired to have filed. We understand
these pleas largely exceeded one hun
bred in number. About fifty were acted
on, AMI So al as they were acted on
they were all rejected by Judge SMITH
as insufficient. The remainder were
Enacted on for want OF time. Recently
Judge GUTHRIE came on the bench, and
he permitted a reargument oil the de-
murrer 10 the declaration, and at the
same term OF the Circuit Court OF Kama
wha he decided tine demurrer good and
entered judgment thereon for the de-
PENDANTS.
/. seems that nOminally the assets OF
the bank represent about $4,000, but
the good assets OF the bank do not actu-
ally exceed $4,000. OF this $4,000 |
nearly all is claimed by persons claiming |
liens thereon, AMI the principal portion
OF these liens are claimed by persons
who are sureties for the bank on
the contract which ia the subject OF
the suit above mentioned. The legali-
Is of some of these liens is contested ina
suit now pending. 1.-THE validity OF the
liens to the extent to which they are
contested is maintained there will
scarcely be a dollar OF the assets OF the
bank availalable to the large debts due
to the State, and il they should be held
invalid the State will not be able 10
realize there!rom more than $4,000,
leaving a large deficiency to I've made
from other sources. Under these cir
cums,ances the State ii it makes its
debt mast depend on the contract sued
on and therefore it has been urging IT'S
suit sgainst the sureties in that contract. |
The Auditor does not understand that |
by appealing from the Judgment of
Judge Guthrie that the judgment of the
State against the bank can in any way
be jeopardizsd, but il it can, he is ad-
vised that the claim OF the State is Just
as likely TO be satisfied, to the extent to
which they will permit it, out of the
assets OF the bank now in the hands OF a
receiver without judgment as with
one. But il there was even any ques.
ton about this he cannot see the pro-
Prieiy, nor DO the legal representatives
Of the State see the propriety, of acqui-
sS ing in what he believes to be an
erroneous decision OF Judge Guthrie
merely for a very uncertain chance OF
realizing a small part Of the judgment
already recovered against the bank. The
Auditor says neither the State nor any OF
,ts officers had anything whatever to do
with the proceedings by which the al
fairs oi the bank were placed in the
hands OF Il receiver. This Was done in a
suit by stockholders alleging gross mis-.
management OF its affairs by these in
charge of the bank and TO this suit the
State did not become party until there
was danger that all the gooi assets OF |
the bank would be absorbed by pre-
tended preferred claims of those who |
hsd managed the bank and who it was
alleged by The plaintiffs tstockhold,rs) |
had grossly mismanaged it.
We make this statement in justice
tn those entrusted with the inter
ests OF the State simply because
we have given The statements OF the
other side. The whole matter is in
court, and we regard its discussion
there more appropriate than in the press.
TnE unexpected prospect OF a con-
siderable number OF anti reputation