The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-01-03

On January 25, 1901, jus seventeen days after the bond sale and the de posit of the check. the Morris banl suspended Meanwhile the bank hat paid. for the treasurer. county war rants or the road and bridge fun. amounting in the aggregate to s6,517.. 16. leaving $104,592 of the road and bridge fund in the hands Of the bank or owing from the bank, at the tin.s of the failure. MT Cochran having under on-prejudice agreement be tween the county and his surety, joined in the arrangement which the bank made with creditors for a resumptio.i of business and the payment of the
 banks creditors in installments, no
 action was taken 5by the county un.tl
 after default by the bank in the pay.
 ment of the stipulated dividends. Pend
 ing this agreement and Def 1rt suit was
 brought. the bank paid to MT. Cochran
 as treasurer, and he duly accounted
 for the same, one dividend on the a..
 count for the road and bridge furd
 amounting to s13,074.05.
 There was also in the Morris bank
 at the time of the failure, to the cred
 1t of the treasurer on account of the
 general fund of the.county. .s42.962.3S.
 upon which dividend was paid before
 suits amounting to s5.370.29.
 @ Suit Filed in 1902.
 Tn January. 1902, the county brought
 suit in the City Court of Montgomery
 against MT. Cochran and his suret Z
 the Fidelity & Deposit Company o' Maryland seeking to recover the bal ance of the two funds amounting then
 without interest, to $36,592.59 general
 fund and 91.492.37 road and bridge
 fund. which MT. Cochran had lost by the bank failure. The surety company
 promptly; removed the suit !, the Cir
 ~t.f ~f T Al.
 ground of prejudice or local influence. In June, 1902. a second dividend was paid in the same amounts as the first dividend on each fund. The cause coming on for trial in the Federal court the attorneys for the county moved to remand the case to the State court on the ground that the Federal court was without jurisdiction--a citizen of the State of Alabama, being t9ined as g. party defendant with the surety com pany, a nonresident Of the State. Tho motion to remand was, however. over ruled. and upon the first trial che coun- ay recovered judgment for the balance of the general fund, and interest amounting then to s36,S6s9. but unde the rulings of the court judg nent went against the county as to the bal ance of the road and bridge fund sued Tor. The surety company paid the judgment for the general fund and the county carried the case by writ If error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting at New Orleans and in the early part of f9rs that court, after. full argument by counsel on both sides, sustained ths lower court in It's ruling or the iuris- dictional question but reversed the case cn the merits and renianded the cause for another trial.
 On the second trial in the FedersI court. which was had in the spring of 1905, the county recovered judgment for $67.103.05,. which was less than the amount claimed and the county again carried the case to the Conrt of Appeals after rejecting an offer on the part of the surety company to settle for S10,0e0. On the second writ of error the court of appeals again reversed tke Judgment of the circuit court of the United States and remended the ca SC for another trial.
 On the third trial in the Circuit Court of the United States Judgment was rendered in favor of the county on account of the road and bridge fund. TOT $lol,0l19o, beng the fuii amount 'ialnleu. lhls was IT, February. 1904.
 Up to Supreme Conrt.
 The surety company then carried ire 'ase 10 the Court of Appeals, being the third time the case was carried to tha ,ourt--and the Judgment of .he circuit 'ourt was promptly affirmed. There. lpon, the surety company carried the ,ase ov writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. In octo ser, 1g04, the attorneys for. he county haoe q motion in that court to dis mss the writ of error on the ground hat the Judgment of the court of ap- ,eals was final under the act creating nat court. So soon as this motion wa 'uDmltted the surety eompauv 1aVe iotlce or an application for certiorarI Q send up the case for review by the supreme Court by that process.
 me motion to dismiss and the applf- l atiun 'l Tor certioart were postponed for | egularly reached upon the docket of | ne supreme Court. althought the at- orneys for the county renewed the mo- lon to dismiss and asked that the cer- lorari petition be passed upon in tho bring of 1905. The cause was not cached for hearing in the Supreme 'ourt until the present term. Ali the uestions involved were argued bv ounsel on both sides. before the Su- reme Court of the United States, carly E November, 1905, and a decision wasI anded down on November 27th in 'hich the court, in an opinion by the hief Justice, sustained the contention | the county and held that the cause 'as improvidentIy removed from the ity Court. that the Federal Court never ad Jurisdiction, and reversed the judg- lent of the Circuit Court and remand d the cause to that court with pre- mptory direction to remand the same ) the City Court of Montgomery Ac- the mandate was issued by le Clerk Of the Supreme Court on De- smber 2Sth, 1905, and TWO days later as presented to the Circuit Court and D order was there made remanding le case to the City Court of Montgom- ". where, on yesterday, q consent ldgment was entered. as already ated.
 Suit Good Investment.
 < he time of tho failure of Josiah orris & Co., Treasurer Cochran had ! deposit with that bank county funds all told, to $147,554SO while lc bond of the Treasurer was for S12O,- 70 only. The two dividends collected 7 Mir. Cochran and turned into the 'unty treasury having reduced the 'incipal to an amount below the pen ty of the bond, made it possible to fleet the residue by suit on the bond, gether with interest from the time of e deposit. Thus 1t appears that the ,unty has realized, since tho bank ilure. $47.61O5l on the general fund, d Sl31,64S10 on the road and bridge md, making a grand total of $l79,- S.61, which the county has realized om the $14T554.So on deposit by the -easurer at the time of the bank fail- e, the difference. $S1.703.S1, being the mount of. interest collected through e suit. , The county comes out ahead and the therto troublesome question of juris- ction is settled for all dime. the juris. ction of the State Courts being sus- ( ah. [