Commercial Bank - Natchez, MS

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: state
Start Date: July 1, 1861*
Location: Natchez, Mississippi (31.560, -91.403)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 41135283

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Dec 7, 1867) describes prior judicial forfeiture of the Commercial Bank of Natchez's charter and dissolution under Mississippi statute; a trustee (Robertson) and later a receiver (Ferguson) were appointed and assets applied to creditors with a surplus contested. No run is mentioned. Date of forfeiture is described as prior to notes dated 1861-07-11, so charter forfeiture likely occurred before mid-1861. I corrected OCR typos in the article text but did not change bank name or city.

Events (2)

1. July 1, 1861* Suspension

Cause: Government Action
Cause Details: State of Mississippi instituted quo warranto proceeding resulting in forfeiture of the bank's charter and judicial dissolution; assets placed in custody of trustee/receiver
Newspaper Excerpt: Prior to the making of the notes an information in the nature of a quo warranto, was instituted by the State of Mississippi against the bank named, under which its charter was declared forfeited, and the corporation was judicially dissolved
Source: newspapers

2. * Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: Subsequently in the suit brought by the stockholders of the bank, one Ferguson was appointed receiver, and the court directed Robertson to surrender to him the funds, notes, &c., in his hands. This was done, and among such notes were the notes of Linn, which were therefore sued in Robertson's name for the use of Ferguson as such trustee. Robertson, as trustee, collected sufficient to pay all the liabilities of the dissolved corporation, after which there remained a surplus in his hands of over $50,000. The stockholders of the bank also sued, contending that the surplus belonged to them. In one of the suits by the debtors of the bank to recover sums paid by them the State court held that the surplus belonged to the State of Mississippi, and the matter was referred to the Attorney General of the State and Mr. Robertson was made custodian of the fund pending litigation. Subsequently in the suit brought by the stock-holders of the bank, one Ferguson was appointed receiver, and the court directed Robertson to surrender to him the funds, notes, &c., in his hands. This was done, and among such notes were the notes of Linn, which were therefore sued in Robertson's name for the use of Ferguson as such trustee. Demurrer was interposed by defendants, the ground being taken that the plaintiff Robertson was functus officio as trustee, and having no other interests, he had no standing in court. The demurrer was overruled, and upon the trial of the cause judgment was for the plaintiff. Thereupon the cause came here, the plaintiff in error (defendant below) urging that the notes were due to the bank, and were given Robertson solely in his official character as trustee, and without any personal interest or right on his part, and he having, prior to the commencement of his suit, paid off all the debts of the bank, and been discharged from all further duties as trustee, could not sue, being functus officio. That he thereby became divested of all right, title and interest, legal and equitable, and was therefore not competent to maintain his action. It is also urged that a judgment of forfeiture of charter having been pronounced against the bank by a court of competent jurisdiction, under the statutes of the State of Mississippi, and the corporation having been dissolved, the debts remaining due thereto, after the payment of all its liabilities, were extinguished, and neither the stockholders nor directors nor trustees can recover the same. In the third place, it is submitted that the Supreme Court of the State, having taken the view that the surplus, under the law of the State, became the property of the State, this court will adopt that construction, according to the usual practice. On the other hand, the defendant in error (plaintiff below) insists that the debts due the bank were not extinguished upon judgment of forfeiture of its charter, but the legal title thereto became vested in Robertson for the use of the creditors of the bank, and also for its stockholders. It does not lie in the debtor's mouth to avoid his contract, which, as between him and his creditors, was made a sufficient consideration. Where defendant has no legal or equitable defence to the bill or note, as against the real owner thereof, he will not be permitted to show that a nominal plaintiff, in whose name the suit is brought, is not the real party in interest. Green Adams and Robert Leech for plaintiff in error; C. Rabiason and Wm. G. Hale for defendant in error. (This passage documents appointment of Ferguson as receiver and transfer of funds.)
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. December 7, 1867 The National Republican Washington, DC

Article from The National Republican, December 7, 1867

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# THE COURTS. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- FRIDAY, December 6, 1867. On motion of Hon. Reverdy Johnson, David Morris, esq., of the State of New York, was Jadmittedto practice as an attorney and counsellor of this court. On motion of Mr. A. K. Browne, William B. Wedgwood, esq., of the city of New York, was admitted to practice as an attorney and coun- sellor of this court. No. 9. Henry M. Rector, plaintiff in error, vs. Chester Ashley's executors. The argument of this cause was concluded by Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, sr., of counsel for the plaintiff in error. No. 10. Simon Mussina, plaintiff in error, vs. Maria J. Cavosos. The motion filed to dismiss this writ of error was argued by Mr. Robinson, in favor thereof, and by Mr. Sherwood and Mr. Edmonds in opposition thereto. No. 11. Walter G. Robinson, plaintiff in error, vs. Lewis Aldridge; in error to the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi. This writ of error was ordered to be dismissed under the 19th rule. No. 12. Jacob Thompson, plaintiff in error, vs. Drury W. Bowman. The argument of this cause was commenced by Mr. Ashton, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, continued by Mr. Reverdy Johnson for the he defendant in error, and con- cluded by Mr. Carlisle for the plaintiff in error. No. 13. Wm. M. Cook, et al., plaintiff in error, v3. Albert T. Burully, et al. This cause was submitted to the consideration of the court in printed argument by Mr. Hergiman, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Adams and Mr. Ballinger for the defendant in error. No. 14. Samuel Myers, plaintiff in error, vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This writ of error was ordered to be dismissed unger the 19th rule. No. 15. Samuel Wilson, plaintiff in error vs. Thomas Wall, et al. This cause was argued by Mr. P. Phillips, of counsel for the defendant in error. Forfeiture of Bank Charters-After forfeiture, are the debts of the bank the property of the debtors, the stockholders or of the State-An important question. -Milton M. Linn, plaintiff in Robertson, use of Ferguson. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. This suit was brought on two promissory notes made at Natchez, Mis- sissippi, on the 11th July, 1861, by Milton M. and Lewis Linn, in favor of Robertson as trustee of the Commercial Bank of Natchez, or order. Prior to the making of the notes an information in the nature of a quo warranto, was instituted by the State of Mississippi against the bank named, under which its charter was declared forfeited, and the corporation was judicially dis- solved, in pursuance of an act of the Legislature prescribing the mode of such a proceeding. Robertson was appointed trustee by the court to take charge of the assets and books of the bank wherever found, whether in possession of the bank or their officers, agents, frustees, or attor- neys, to sue and collect all debts, to sell and dispose of all property, real and personal, owned by the bank or held by others for its use the proceeds of all to be applied to the payment of the debts of the bank. Mr. Robertson, as trustee, collected sufficient to pay all the liabilities of the dissolved corpo- ration, after which there remained a surplus in his hands of over $50,000. In the meantime parties were suing him to recover back the amount paid by them, alleging that, after the payment of all the debts of the corporation, the surplus funds in the hands of the receiver was lawfully the property of the debtors of the cor- poration. The stockholders of the bank also sued, contending that the surplus belonged to them. In one of the suits by the debtors of the bank to recover sums paid by them the State court held that the surplus belonged to the State of Mississippi, and the matter was referred to the Attorney General of the State and Mr. Robertson was made custodian of the fund pend- ing litigation. Subsequently in the suit brought by the stock- holders of the bank, one Ferguson was appointed receiver, and the court directed Robertson to surrender to him the funds, notes, &c., in his hands. This was done, and among such notes were the notes of Linn, which were therefore sued in Robertson's name for the use of Fergu- son as such trustee. Demurrer was inter- posed by defendants, the ground being taken that the plaintiff Robertson was functus officio as trustee, and having no other interests, he had no standing in court. The demurrer was overruled, and upon the trial of the cause judgment was for the plaintiff. Thereupon the cause came here, the plaintiff in error (defendant below) urging that the notes were due to the bank, and were given Robertson solely in his official character as trustee, and without any personal interest or right on his part, and he he having, prior to the commencement of his suit, paid off all the debts of the bank, and been discharged from all further duties as trustee, could not sue, being functus officio. That he thereby became divested of all right, title and interest, legal and equitable, and was therefore not competent to maintain his action. It is also urged that a judginent of forfeiture of charter having been pronounced against the bank by a court of competent jurisdiction, un- der the statutes of the State of Mississippi, and the corporation having been dissolved, the debts remaining due thereto, after the payment of all its liabilities, were extinguished, and neither the stockholders nor directors nor trustees can recover the same. In the third place, it is sub- mitted that the Supreme Court of the State, having taken the view that the cusplus, under the law of the State, became the property of the State, this court will adopt that construction, according to the usual practice. On the other hand, the defendant in error (plaintiff below) insists that the debts due the bank were not ex- tinguished upon judgment of forfeiture of its charter, but the legal titie thereto became vest- ed in Robertson for the use of the creditors of the bank, and also for its stockholders. It does not lie in the debtor's mouth to avoid his con- tract, which, as between him and his creditors, was made a sufficient consideration. Nor can there be a valid objection in this case to a recov- ery in the plaintiff's name for the use of Fergu- son. Robertson is the legal owner, and he can sue as trustee for persons having real interest. It is no ground of defence that the beneficial in- terest is in others, or that the plaintiff, when he recovers, will be bound to account for the pro- ceeds to others. Where defendant has no legal or equitable defence to the bill or note, as against the real owner thereof, he will not be permitted to show that a nominal plaintiff, in whose name the suit is brought, is not the real party in in- terest. Green Adams and Rohort Leech forplaintiff in error; C. Rabiason and Wm. G. Hale for defend- ant in error. # CIRCUIT COURT. Circuit Court-Chief Justice Cartter.- This court yesterday transacted the following busi- ness: 3170. Mrs. M. C. Rodgers vs. J. W. Butterfield. Brent and Bradley. The jury, in this case, which has occupied the court for the past two days, came into court yesterday morning with a verdict for the plain- tiff for $50 with interest from date of suit and costs. 3130. Corbit vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. In the absence of a material witness, this case was continued until the 17th inst. 3142. K. Meyenburg vs. R. S. L. Walsh. Chipman and Hosmer-Philips. This case came up on appeal from a justice. Dr. Walsh sued Meyenburg for doctor's fees due for attending a lad in the latter's employment, Walsh alleging and Meyenburg denying that he had agreed to be responsible for such fees. The justice below decided in favor of Walsh, but the Court, on this appeal, said the verdict below was eroneous, and should be reversed. 4171. Fry Willet & Co, vs. Thomas Sargeant. Judgment by default. Harmon & Hopkins vs. Moffit. In this case an attachment for A. P. House, a witness, was ordered. 3632. Brown vs. Peden. Bradley-Jones and Ashford. Case dismissed. 263. Hickman et al. vs. Edwards. Action of ejectment. Davis Cox Bradley, Plaintiff t granted leave to amend declaration. 376. T. C. Simpson vs. Henry Lichau. Hine- Lloyd. Judgment for plaintiff confirmed. 24. Bodtler vs. King. Judgment awarded on the basis of auditor's report. # LAND CONDEMNATION. The Court at 2 o'clock took up the cases of land condemned on the line of the Point of Rocks branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Messrs. Boule, Buchanan, and Cox appeared for the railroad company. The Gales land condemnation case was first called up. Bradley, jr., for owners. Other cases were partially considered, but the cases were not concluded at the adjournment of the Court. CASES FOR MONDAY. The following cases are assigned for Monday: I b of in