Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-09-23
FREDERICKSBURG BANK CASE
QUESTION or Ju8isDicTloM
The Stase Made Parry Defendant. bus she
Motion to Remove shc Cause 90 Riehmsnd

mottom 70 hemove the Cause "
Denied.
Reported for the Dispatch.j
PETgRsBrRc. Va, September 2?, 1881.
In the Hastings Court to-day judge b.
NJ. Mann delivered his opinion on ine
question OF the Jurisdiction OF bis court y,
the matter Of the suit OF williams snu
others rs. The Planters and Mechan'cs
Bark, raised In the petition recently n.eu
by the counsel for the State, pray ing qua.
the cnuse be removed 10 the Circuil court
OF Richmond. The question was aDiy az
gued at the time by Major Charles >.
stringiellow, of Richmond. for the state
and by Messrs. II. b. Davis aud X. i. VIZ
SOD, OF this city, who represented, respec-
lively. the trustees and the creditors. Tue
decision of the Court was reserved until
the present term. Messrs. Thomas ;. Mar
lin. of Scottsyille. and NJ. NJ. Gillian, OF
Richmond. were present in court to-day,
renrescuting the Stale. IN place OF Messrs.
Pegrpm and SuiDgfe'low, Withdrawn from
the case.
gbc decision OF Judge Mann was awaited
with great deal OF interest by reason OF
the fact that the great body Of the creditors
of the bank reside 10 and near Petersburg.
and the removal OF the cause from our
court, IL was Centrally believed, would
prove q great hardship to them.
The decision, after reviewing the
record in the case and making numerous
legal citations, saws:
The Commonwealth Of Virginia. through
It's Treasurer, in reference to the published
notice OF Commissioners Armistead, ap-
pcared before him. by counsel, aud proved
0ts) said claim, thereby making himself IN
actual plaintiff in this cause. and submitted
TO the Jurisdiction Of This court as the pro-
per form TO adiudicate the claim OF the
Commonwealth against said bank. He
now appears by petition and asks to
he changed from party plalnt'h TO
n party defendant I'm this cause.
and for a removal Of the same to the Cir
cult Court Of the city Of Richmond. III Is
clearly within the general powers OF n
court OF equity, where all necessary parties
are before 1t. and il apears that the Interest
Of one OF the plaintiffs IS IN conflict with
that Of bis co-plaintiii. to change such
plaintiff 10 party defendant. aud thus en-
able him 10 raise, by eross-blil or other
wise, all questions not at issue in the
causc, and which are necessary TO enable
the Court 10 decide upon thc,,rights OF all
the parties, and thus finally adludicate all
UlltSIlOllS anu W NOiliisttif iNNAi@' pft"''h
an parties before it without subiec;lng
them 10 the expense and delay incident to
the bringing OF other suits. The Common
wealth Of Virginia has clearly the right to
institute suit in equity against the proper
paItiesi for the purpose OF having adiudic ted
The questions raised in it, petition, which
could and should be instituted in this court,
rs the fund in controversy is now under
its control. and the two causes should then
be heard together. Forthe purpose, there
fore, OF ayoiding such expense aud delay
the Count will change the ,aidspctitiOner
from party plaintiff to party defendant
in this cause, permit him TO file his petit
tion-to be treated as eros -bill-and or
der the proper parties TO be summoned
before this court TO answer the same {;
but denies the prayer OF the petitioner ask
iny a removal OF this cause, being OF opin-
ion, for reasons before given. that this
technical change II the petitioner to party
defendant. for the purpose Of making him
a party plaintiff in his petition. does not
cone within the puryiew OF sections and
and s of chapter a, relied on by the petit
TONER to sustain hi, motion for It's removal
to the Circuit Court OF the city OF Rich
mond.
The principle that when court OF equity
has once properly and lawfully acquired
jurisdiction OF a cause upon equitable
grounds. 1t may 90 on to a complete adiu-
dicaton. even to the extent Of establish
ing legal rights and granting legal remedies.
which would not otherwise be beyond the
scope Of It's authority. has been frequently
recognized by the Supreme Court OF this
and other States. Vide Macarthur rs.
Wnlfar. D. Farmer.
Bank Of Virginia, 76 Virginia, Is; BnFk Us.
Campbell, 20 Graft, 49,; story's Eq. J.
Sec. Go Ct Seq; Hunt Us. Hunt, y y. u,
2l7.
This court having thus acquired iuris-
diciion Of this cause. ii Is not only IT. right,
but its duty, TO proceed to complete adlil-
dication Of all questions raised therein and
10 do complete Justice to all parties inter-
Csted.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
After rendering his decision Judge Mann
stated verbally that tie case il one OF great
importance. involving large interests TO
many people. He therefore hoped that
counsel would expedite matters so rs to
render as little delay necessary a. possible.
To this counsel all around assented, and 1t
was agreed that the ease should be made MP
fer trial 1t the October term OF the court.
The next question that will come up for
seiten ent will be the validity OF the deed
made by the directors to the trustees.
II was stated to the Court that the iund'
OF the bank. in the custody OF the trustees,
are deposited under the order Of the Court
in the banks Of this city, but that they arc
drawing no Interest. The Judge stated
that he saw 10 prospect OF distributing
these funds for several months yet. H'
thought inquiry should be made Is to the
be,i disposition to lie made OF the money
in the mean time.
THE sURETIEs' PETITIONS DENIED.
At the August term OF the court John
Lyon. Esq, OF Richmond, counsel for
benjamin \. Davis and George +. Perkln-
son. surtties for the States deposit in the
Planters and Mechanics Bank, presented
petitions praying that they be made parties
defendant in this suit. Argument on these
petitions was heard on the "a Of september
Judge Mann to-day denied their prayers
lie said there was nothing to show thai
they had paid the money. or that the stat,
had not taken all necessary steps to s"tti'
the very question they desire 10 be settled