Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-09-03
THROUGH THE STATE.
PETERSBURG.

uuoos OF tRe e@a0 eod the Surette& Argu-
msou ss TO the Jurisdiction o. the Illus.
tsAgs Court.
iCorespondcnco 81 The Richmcod Nspatch.l
SEPTEMBER 2, 1884.
The Hastings Court to-day took up the
case OF the Planters and Mechanics Bank.
II beng understood that The question OF the
jurisdiction az the court would be raised
md srsucd. pcsrlv all the members OF the
bar were present 80 hear the speeches.
Captain John Lyon, OF Richmond. OF
counsel for Mr.. benjamin A. Davis aud
George l.. Parkinson, called The ST.
tntion OF Che Court 10 the petition OF those
gentlemen 10 he made party defendant In
The suit Of Williams and others against the
Planters and Mechanics Bank. The Pc
uiion sets forth in ful the ground 81 this
application. The petitioners src the only
rNo sIritics on the banks bond 70 the
State who were not directors Of She bank,
and in no wise responsible Cor It's manage
nont. They have large interests in this
suit. and aSk leave 10 tlc their answer.
Major Stnngicllow. Of Richmond, asked
leave TO file the petition OF Treasurer
Bsxksdac. The petition sets forth In full
The claim Of The state and the grounds
uron which ii Is asserted. Ii asks that the
State be made party defendant 90 the suit
OF NilliamS and others against the bank; that
The cause bc transferred 10 the Circuit Court
ID Richmond; that the Court will declare
The deed Of the 10Th Of May. made 10y the
directors o, the hank. null and void; and
that receiver bc appointed TO collect all
moneys due thc hank and apply them N
the PAYMENT OF the states clsim, for which
Trioriy over al other claims il alleged by
reason of judgment snd execution. which
a
The bands O, the Sheriff Of Richmond.
Major StTingfcl.ow declared there was
no design 10 gain any advantage by the re-
movSl 81 this cause 20 Richmond. The
fact, are that the Attorney-Gcneral and
Treasurer Of the state reside in Richmond.
snd that as 4 matter Of public policy and
public convenience the cause should be
removed there. lie then read the sections
IL The law under which the motion for
transfer Was made. lie ably argued the
question az length, snd was heard with
crcat interest.
mir. George :. Bernard asked leave to file 4
petition in behalf II the Norfolk and West
cTn Railroad Company. praying the Court
e. take cognizance Of the pcndaDCy Of the
suits II The company. the Citizens Bank O,
Blacks.and.WhitcS.a and the Union Bank OF
New York against The bank. in which the
validity Of the deed Of assignment Is queS-
toned, snd for whose CLAIMS judgments
snd executions have been obtained. These
suits will mature at the October term OF The
couIi.
Captain Lyon, Of counsel For MeSSrs.
DAVIS snd PcrkinSon. cOncurredi in The W-u-
ineni ~ Najor Sfringfciiow in favor OF the
removal Of The cause 10 Richmond.
Il. I. Wilson. representing the general
creditors - The bank, utterly denied the
allegation a fraud made in the State peti-
lion. lie asserted that the Commonwealth
/, PARTY plaintiff. ana 81 its own chOos
ing. In The suit Of williams and other,
thc state c.mc IN ana regularly proved il
cain. Iontliiouaily or Internationally,
tie Commonwealth ! party plaia'ih IN
tits cause. Beng such, will the Court
make The state party defendant for the
purpose Of gushing the jurisdiction OF the
Eu>'ings Courtg This suit was not brought
10 affect any claim Of the commonwealth.
sud TIE State was mtdc party pnintin
therein. Mr.. Wilson argued "a length
against The removal 81 The cause 30 the Cir
tSlu court ~ Richmond, Is not a. all
Justified hy Tie circumstances Of the case.
II il il, proper now To remove this case to
that court. then that court was the proper
form IN which 10 have originally brought
ibc suit. He claimed thatthe Circuit Court
Il Richmond is a court OF limited iuriSdic-
ton, and thst this cause caDnOtbe removed
10 il. In conclusion, Mr.. Wils0n said II
would work manifest injustice and hard
shin 10 tie other creditors % remove the
e.su,e 10 Richmond. He claimed that the
Hastings Court OF Petersburg IL The pro-
per and only tribunal in law and equity
IN which 20 determine this cause. He also
argued against making the .ureties-Messrs.
DAVIS and Perkinson-parti defendant.
and hoped thst the prayers Of both peti-
tons would De denied.
X. b. Davis. counsel for the trustees,
next spoke. and stated the reasons that. in
vi, judgment, should preclude the Court
from granting The petitions % the State
and the snrelies. He declared that the suit
ID williams and others was a general
creditors bill. the object Of which was 10
stop all scramble for priority o. claims.
md 10 give the funds Of the bank 10 all the
claimants, ratably and equit.bly. Under
such a bill the state csnnOi be made 4
Iarty defendant. When the Hastings
Court entered the decree for this bill. il
stopped eli other proceedings. Thi, bllld does
not proceed against the Commonwealth S,a
party defendant. and therefore there ia no
ground for removing the cause 10 Richmond.
The Hastings Court has assumed iurisdic-
non ~ this cause. IN entering the decree
for the general creditors bill. IN which The
state CONES in on equal grounds with all
Qhcr creditors. Ii Is proper case for II,
jurisdiction. The bank Is here. the large
usiOniy % the creditors ana depositor'
live here, and here they can the better look
sdttr their interests. This case is not one
Of that class 10 which the statute applies.
In reference 10 The petition Of the SIreiir..
Mr. Davis argued that q surety has no
equity where The principal debtor and
lc creditors are performing their duties.
~ this csse every effort is being made 10
make The bank Jay Is debts.
NaioT >trin-iell,W responded on behalf
Of ne state. lie held that the validity OF
4 judgment obtained IN The Circuit Court
OF richmond could not De- as,ailed in any
OtleT count iu tie state. This court mu,i
Le governed 10y the simple language OF tine
statute.
Captain Lyon spoke IN behalf Of the
sulc,ics. after which the court adjourned.
The decision Of the NuIt viii be given
81 DE September term Of the court, which
tcg,ns Oh the 10th instant
nlvrN