Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1916-12-15
ELLIOTT Upn()LE)S
 VALIDITY IF 1HE:
 STATE BANK ACT Chancellor Decides Against Defendant Stockholder of Old Bank of Pine Bluff.
COMMISSIONER B MAY
 LEVY AsSEsSss;;IaTE sSs;;IIaT FEN ' S5 SS55
In the Test Case of the Banking | t1oill- missioner Against W. k. Graham Judge Elliott Renders Judgment
 for SS,000-Appeal is Taken.

The onstitutionality of act No. 113, known as the Arkansas banking act, and the authority of the state banking commissioner to levy assessments against stockholders of defunct banks when the assets of the institutions prove insufficient to meet the liabil- ties, were upheld yesterday by Judge John M. Elliott in rendering judgment for plaintiff for $S,0G0 in the suit Of John NJ. Davis, state bank commits sioner, vs w. E. Graham, stock holder in the old Bank of Pine Bluff, which case was transferred recently from the circuit court to the cna'l- cery court on motion of attorneys for plaintiff, Bridges, Woodbridge & Wool dridge. Attorneys for the defendant, Taylor, Jones & Taylor, prayed for and were granted an appeal to the supreme court,
 This was the first time the question of the validity of the act had been passed upon by the courts. Several other suits are pending, two Ill the chancery court in which Mrs. Minnie Mckenzie and A. w. Mum, stock I holders in the old Bank of Pine Bluff l In others against stockholders ill the same institutions, default judgments were taken recently before Judge w. B. Sorrells in the circuit court. 1 In answering the complaint of the state bank commissioner in the Ora ham suit, the defendant attacked the validity of act No. 11S, under the pro visions of which the assessment of 100 per cent was levied against stock holders of the Bank of Pine Bluff, contending that the act is in viola ton of sections of the federal and state constitution providing, respec- lively. that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and that none shall be deprived of life, 1 liberty or property without due pro- cess of law, and of the provisions or the state constitution stipulating that no special privilege shall be granted and giving the general assembly power to altar the charters Of cor porations, providing no injustice IS done. The defendant contended that the act impaired the obligation CT contract of the defendast with the Bank of Pine Bluff an it's creditors, ana QeprlVGU luc uclcIluolAl VI Pt. vileges and immunities allowed clti- zens holding stock in other cor porations.
 1 Denies Right to Levy Assessment
 The defendant contended that the state banking commissioner was without authority, under the act to levy an assessment of 100 per cent, and that the chancery court had no' given such authority, and that the defendants liability, if any, lnureo solely to creditors of the defunct ln- stitution and was enforceable solely by them. :.
 The point was also advanced that Il the act is, valid, it was intended to be prospective and not retroactive and that defendants liability IS rat able with other stockholders only TOT the debts contracted by the bank since January 1. 1914, the date on which act No 113 became effective and defendant denied that the deots of the bank of Pine Bluff contracted since January 1. 1914, equalled loo | per cent of the stock, Tor any amount whatsoever"