Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-04-10
SUPREME COURT.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION RELATING TO MA:
TIoNAL BANKS.

AN lhPOhiAnI DEClolOS hEIAl1Nt 10 ma
TIoNAL BANKS.
WASHINGTON, April ga decision was
rendered by the United States Supreme Court
to-day in tue case of the Cook County, Ma
tion1l Bank OF Chicago against the U aiisd
States. TIE riucipal question in c1ntro-
versy was whether, the bauk being iusolyent,
the claim OF the United States for mon,ys
deposited by the postmaster Of Chicago is
preferred C aim or not The court holds that
the provisions of the natiols bank act, sec.
ton $3.50, Revised Stalu have The effect OF
Withdrawing nstional banks ID at have failed
from The class of insoivent persons out of
whose estate the demands of the United
States ave 10 Be paid In preference to claims
of other creditors. The claims of the United
States, therefore, against insolvent ma
tional bank are not entitled to priority of
payment out of is assets. TIE court also-
answers in the negative the question whether
the United States have a right 10 claim pay
ment OF their demand of surplus moneys re-
naming 10 the treasury out OF bonds deposited
as security for circulating notes of the bank.
The court holds that bouds 50 deposited con-
stitute trust, and trustee cannot set of
against funds held by him in that character
his ind vidual demand against the grautors
of the trust. The decree OF the Circuit Court
is reversed and the cause remanded, with
~ nuolaln INT Vie
miss the bill.
A decision was also rendered by the curt
10 the last Of the Missouri bank CAGES, VIZ:
The United States against Edward P. Curtis,
cashier of the National Bank of Missouri at
81. Louis. This case arises out OF an indict-
ment for perjury, in which it is charged that
the defendant, Curtis, knowingly swore 10 the
truth OF certain false statements contained
in The reports made by the bank TO the Comp
| trOller of Currency. The defendant de-
INJURED to indie. ment on the technical ground
| that uuder the laws OF The United States the
notary public before whom the oath was
| taken was not an officer or person competent
| to administer such oath. This court is of
opinion that the demurrer should be aus
tsiued, and the certified question of the
| court below is answered accordingly.
A decision was also rendered in the inter-
esting customs case involving less than "a,
| brought here upon writ OF error from
the Circuit Court OF the United States
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This
case, which is entitled Magdalene Won Cotz-
hansen against john Nazro, collector, and
| Henry &. Payne, postmaster, arose out OF
facts below stated. In May, 1877, Mrs. Won
Colz1auseu received by mai, through the
| Milwaukee post Office, sealed envelope con-
| tanning a small knit shawl or scarf, sent her
by her daughter.in-law in Germany, as a
token OF affection. This envelope was duly
registered and bore Endorsement stating the ma
| tuTe of contents. The collector OF customs was
notified by tue post M asier OF the receipt OF
The envelope, and it was delivered to Mrs
Won Coiznsusen, and opened by her in the
collectors presence. No ait; mpt wss 10 ade
10 evade payment OF proper duty or to conceal
the nature OF the contents OF the envelope.
Mrs Won Co zhausen WIS willing to pay he
duty, but the collector promptly seized the
shawl and confi,c 4ted it as smuggled good
He informed Mrs Won Co'zlaussn that she
could apply to the secretary Of the treasury
for lelve to pay the duty and take the shawl
and that the extreme penalty of the Law
would probably be r,mitted. The seizure
however, had given rise to bad feeling or
the part OF Mrs. Won Cotzhaus.u, and ac.-
ing under the advice Of counsel, she
declined to take the course sug
gested, and brought suit agsius
the postmaster and collector for unlawfu
conversion of property. The jury returned
a special verdict, in the nature OF ildiug
OF facts substantially as above stated, and
judgment was entered for defendants, upon
the ground that they had acted strictly
within the line of their official duty. Tn.
circuit Judge said, however, in concludinl
his opinion, that it DID not seen
quite coHsonant with justice and right
: IN such a Gaze as this, that property
: should be virtually cou6,cated where Their,
| was evidentsliy no attempt TO svoid paymen
of the daIy. 81 do not see, however," h
said, "but that We are bound down by tn
strict letter of the law, which must neces
8 sarily operate with severity upon some case
. where We could wish it did not, if we wer
J. permitted TO indulge in any wish upon tn
{, subject"
An appeal was taken TO this court, an
. Justice Miller rendered the courts decisio
: as follows: at is violation OF law to il
! troduce dutisbe articles at all 10 this m 81
3 ner (by mail), and articles SO introduced ar
l liable 10 seizure for such violation. W
8 think that in making the seizure the defenC
ants only did their duty, and whatever III
hardship to the plaintiff, they are not lab
{ | to thia actioun