In the State of Mississippi, a judgment of forfeiture was
rendered against the Commercial Bank of Natchez and a trustee
appointed to take charge of all promissory notes in possession of
the bank.
The trustee brought an action upon one of these promissory
notes.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff, as trustee, had
collected and received of the debts, effects, and property of the
bank an amount of money sufficient to pay the debts of the bank,
and all costs, charges, and expenses incident to the performance of
the trust.
To this plea the plaintiff demurred.
The action was brought in a state court, and the highest court
of the state overruled the demurrer and gave judgment for the
defendant.
This Court has no jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section of
the Judiciary Act to
Page 57 U. S. 107
review this decision. The question was merely one of
construction of a statute of the state as to the extent of the
powers of the trustee under the statute.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Page 57 U. S. 112
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is brought here by writ of error directed to the High
Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Mississippi under the
25th section of the act of 1789 upon the ground that a law of that
state, under which this decision was made, impairs the obligation
of contracts.
It is an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff declares on a
promissory note made by Collins in his lifetime to the Commercial
Bank of Natchez. The declaration avers that after the execution of
the note and before the commencement of this suit, a judgment of
forfeiture was rendered against the bank on the 12th of December,
1845, according to a statute of the state in such case made and
provided, and that the plaintiff was appointed by the court
trustee, and as such took possession of this note, and that by
means thereof and by force of the statute of the state, Collins
became liable to pay him the money.
The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff, as trustee, had
Page 57 U. S. 113
collected and received of the debts, effects, and property of
the bank an amount of money sufficient to pay the debts of the bank
and all costs, charges, and expenses incident to the performance of
the trust. To this plea the plaintiff demurred.
The court of appeals overruled the demurrer and gave judgment
for the defendant upon the ground that the plea was a full and
complete bar to the enforcement of the right set out in the
declaration. And this judgment is now brought here for revision by
writ of error.
A motion has been made to dismiss the writ for want of
jurisdiction. And in the argument of this motion a question has
been raised whether, by the common law, the debts due to a bank at
the time of the forfeiture of its charter would not be
extinguished, upon the dissolution of the corporation, and the
creditors without remedy. And cases have been referred to in the
Mississippi Reports in which it has been decided that, by the
common law, previous to any state legislation on the subject upon
the dissolution of a banking corporation, its real estate reverted
to the grantor and its personal property belonged to the state;
that the debts due to it were extinguished, and the creditors
without remedy against the assets or any of them which belonged to
the bank at the time of the forfeiture.
But this question is not before us upon this writ of error, and
we express no opinion upon it. The suit is not brought by a
creditor of the bank seeking to recover a debt due to him by the
corporation at the time of its dissolution. But it is brought by a
trustee appointed by a court of the state, under the authority of a
statute of the state, and the question before the state court which
the pleadings presented was whether the trustee was authorized by
the law under which he was appointed to collect more money from the
debtors of the corporation than was necessary to pay its debts, and
the expenses of the trust.
Now in authorizing the appointment of a trustee where a banking
corporation was dissolved, the state had undoubtedly a right to
restrict his power within such limits as it thought proper. And the
trustee could exercise no power over the assets or credits of the
bank beyond that which the law authorized. The court of appeals, it
appears, decided that the statute did not authorize him to collect
more than was sufficient to pay the debts of the corporation and
the costs and charges of the trust. And as the demurrer to the plea
admitted that he had collected enough for that purpose, the court
held that he could not maintain a suit against the defendants to
recover more.
The question therefore presented to the state court was merely
as to the powers of a trustee appointed by virtue of a statute of
Mississippi. His powers depended upon the
Page 57 U. S. 114
construction of the statute. And we have no right to inquire
whether the state court expounded it correctly or not. We are bound
to receive their construction as the true one. And this statute, as
expounded by the court, does not affect the rights of the creditors
of the bank or the stockholders. The plaintiff does not claim a
right to the money under a contract made by him, but under the
powers and rights vested in him by the statute. And if the statute
clothes him with the power to collect the debts and deal with the
assets of the bank to a certain amount only, and for certain
purposes, we do not see how such a limitation of his authority
interferes in any degree with the obligation of contracts.
The writ of error to this Court must consequently be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record,
from the High Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of
Mississippi and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it
is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that this cause be,
and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.