Article Text
Circuit Court of the United States. IN EQUITY. Hugh McRea, James Bankhead, and George Learight. citizeus of Nashville, Tennessee, VS. Bank of Charleston, South Carolina, Charles T. Lowudes, George A. Trenholm, Heury Gourdin, Alexander Robertson and Win. Thayer, citizens of Charleston, South Carolina. Bill for Injunction, Discovery and Relief. Brewster And Spratt, Solicitors for Complainants. The above Bill has been filed in behalf of Complainants and all others not citizens of South Carolina who are creditors of the Bank of Charleston. The Bill alleges that the Bank of Charleston was incorporated with a capital of two million dollars, with leave to increase the same two millions more, and afterwards modified by an Act ratified ou the 20th December, 1853, to be continued until the year 1877. The bank, it is alleged, has currency out to the amount of two million dollars and two million more on deposit for which certificates of deposit have been given. The Bank suspended payment of gold and silver on said notes and bills issued in accordance with its charter on the 10th of April, 1861, and since have refused to pay specie for said currency and deposits. The Bill further says that the purpose of South Carolina in granting the charter was to furnish to the citizens of the State its promissory notes and bills of credit in the nature of a circulating medium, and its certificates the representatives of and silver current coin, gold for funds deposited and that the nocomplishment of this policy and public purpose constituted the trust and condition of the charter; that the Bank having failed to redoem its promises. the assets are in the hands of the officers and directors as a trust fund. Various other allegations are made of breach of charter, and that the officers have continued to keep up the semblance of a banking corporation. It is further alleged that they extend to the stockholders information as to the condition of their assets, which they carefully cxclude from the complainants. It is further alleged that these parties hold what remained of the assets, consisting of coin to the value of thirty thousand dollars, real estate, notes, bonds, stock and domestic and foreign exchange, to the value of seven bundred thousand dollars, which assets, it is alleged, are withheld from the creditors, and applied to the uses of the stockholders. Another allegation in the Bill is, that the stockholders at the date of the failure, and those who were so within twelve months prior thereto, are liable to the creditors, by the provisions of the charter, for a sum not exceeding twice the amount of their shares. The Bill alleges that many of the Stockholders have transferred their shares to irresponsible persons, and hope, through such transfer, to escape liability. The Bill craves relief, and also the appointment of receivers, also to make the stockholders liable. As this is a matter of great public interest, we propose publishing a copy of the Bill.Governor Orr has convened a special meeting of the Legislature, and it may bc important that that body should take action on the subject. It is believed by our ablest lawyers that the clause of the charter making stockholders liable is a penalty, and does not create liability to creditors. For the support of this position the fact is relied upon that the clause above alluded to does not say expressly to whom the stockholders are liable in case of failure. At the last session of the Legislature a Bill for the relief of stockholders was brought forward in the Senato by Henry Buist. It was then thought by the stockholders the Bill would have been passed, and ought to have been passed, as it WHB evidently the design of the Act of Incorporation to make stockholders liable only in case of improper conduct on the part of the directors. If the Legislature does not interfere and repeal the penalty, or the Court should decide that the clause is not a penalty, but in the nature of a contract with billholdors and depositors, the change of property consequent in either of such cases will be such as to involve in ruin those who have saved some remnant of property from the dovustation of the civil war and convulsion through which the State has passed since 1860. We understand that this 3080 cannot be heard until the fourth Monday in November next at Columbia, S.C., unless a special Cirouit Court shall be convened to hear equity cases. If the case is no: heard in November