Elijah Peale, Trustee of the Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, Plaintiff In Error v. Martha Phipps, and Mary Bowers, Wife of Charles Rice

• Decision Date: 01 December 1852
• Citation: 14 How. 368,14 L.Ed. 459,55 U.S. 368
• Parties: ELIJAH PEALE, TRUSTEE OF THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF MISSISSIPPI, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARTHA PHIPPS, AND MARY BOWERS, WIFE OF CHARLES RICE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

55 U.S. 368 14 How. 368 14 L.Ed. 459 ELIJAH PEALE, TRUSTEE OF THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF MISSISSIPPI, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARTHA PHIPPS, AND MARY BOWERS, WIFE OF CHARLES RICE. December Term, 1852

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

It will be seen, by reference to 4 Howard, 225, that Charles Rice, and Mary his wife, and Martha Phipps, recovered, in an action of ejectment against the Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, two undivided third parts of a lot of ground in the city of Natchez.

Page 369

In May, 1847, they sued out a writ of habere facias possessionem, and entered into possession of the property.

Under the laws of Mississippi, the charter of the bank became forfeited, and Elijah Peale was appointed trustee.

In April, 1848, Martha Phipps, and Mary Bowers, wife of Charles Rice, filed their petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, against Peale. They claimed rent of the property from 1839 to 1847, damages for injuries done to the property whilst in possession of the bank, and the costs to which they had been put by the ejectment. Peale filed exceptions, and an answer. The second exception, upon which the judgment of this court turned, was as follows.

2. Because the charter of Agricultural Bank was declared forfeited, and the said bank put in a course of liquidation as an insolvent corporation, and this defendant appointed trustee, for the purpose of collecting the assets thereof, by the Circuit Court of Adams County, in the State of Mississippi; and said trustee is not amenable to any other court than the one that appointed him, and of which he is the officer; and this court has no jurisdiction whatever of him in his said capacity.

The following agreement of counsel was filed in the case.

It is agreed between the parties in the above-named suit, by Prentiss and Finney, attorneys for the plaintiffs, and Robert Mott, attorney for the defendant, that the following facts shall be admitted upon the trial of the cause, and the same are hereby admitted:

1. That the President, Directors, and Company of the Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, were in possession of the City Hotel, being the premises, the mesne profits of which are sued for on the 1st day of December, 1839.

2. It is admitted, that the said hotel and furniture rented, from said 1st day of December, 1839, until 1st November, 1842, for the sum of six thousand dollars per annum, and from said 1st November, 1842, until plaintiffs took possession at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum, and that said rates shall be considered as the fair annual rent of said property during said periods.

3. It is admitted, that the charter of the Agricultural Bank has been adjudged forfeited under the laws of Mississippi, and that the defendant, Elijah Peale, is the trustee appointed under, and by virtue of said laws, to represent the said corporation.

4. It is admitted, that the claim sued on, was, before the commencement of this suit, presented to the commissioners appointed in Mississippi, to audit and allow claims against said bank, to wit, to J. A. Van Dalsen and C. L. Dubuisson, and they were

Page 370

requested to audit and allow the same, but that they refused to audit, allow, or in any way recognize the same.

5. It is admitted, that the claim sued on, was, before the commencement of this suit, presented to the defendant, as trustee of said Agricultural Bank, and he was requested to allow the same as a just and valid claim against said bank; but that said defendant, as trustee as aforesaid, refused to admit, recognize, or allow said claim, or any part thereof.

6. It is admitted, that the fees of counsel employed by the plaintiffs in the prosecution of the suit of ejectment against the Agricultural Bank, for the recovery of said City Hotel, in the Circuit Court and Supreme Court of the United States, exceeded in value the sum of two thousand dollars, and that said sum of $2000 dollars would be a reasonable fee for the conduct of said suit from its commencement to its termination.

It is admitted, that the furniture of house, &c., on the premises, formed part of the rent in the proportion of one fourth to three fourths thereof.

It is admitted, that the charter of the bank was declared forfeited by law, and the assets of the bank put in the possession of the defendant, who still holds the same as trustee or representative.

RO. MOTT, Attorney.

PRENTISS & FINNEY, For...