The Bank Or St. Mary's v. The State Or Ga.
Decision Date | 31 January 1853 |
Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
Parties | The Bank or St. Mary's, plaintiff in error, vs. The State or Georgia, &c. defendant. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Action on the case, in the nature of a qui tarn action. Tried before Judge Iverson. November Adjourned Term of Muscogee Superior Court, 1852.
This was an action brought upon the information of Philip A. Clayton, against the Bank of St. Mary's, for the recovery of the penalty imposed by the Act of 1835, for the issuing of change bills, being bills under the denomination of five dollars. On the trial, the issuing of one hundred and ninety bills of this description, (identified before the Jury,) was proven. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, for the half of the penalty affixed by the Statute for the issuing of these several bills, viz: $47,500. A writ of error was sued out to the rulings and decisions of the Court upon this trial. The view taken by the Supreme Court, renders it unnecessary to set forth these several decisions; the case turning upon the question whether the Act passed by the Legislature of 1851-2, repealing the Act of 1835, (under which this action was brought,) after suit commenced, but before judgment, relieved the defendant from that portion of the penalty, (viz: one-half,) which under the Act of 1835, went to the informer. The Court below held that it did not.
Benning and Moses, for plaintiff in error.
B. Hill and C. Williams, for defendant in error.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J. delivering the opinion.
" Each and every issuing, passing away, or circulating of each and every such bank bill or note, as is specified in the first section of this Act, contrary to the spirit, true intent and meaning thereof, shall constitute a new, separate, and distinct offence, and shall be liable to a new, separate, and distinct penalty." Cobb's New Dig. pp. 99, 100.
The Statute amendatory of this, approved December 22d, 1835, enacts—" That from and after the passage of the same, it shall not be lawful for any bank or body corporate, or person or persons whomsoever, within the limits of this State, to issue, emit, pay away, pass or circulate any bank bill, note, or ticket, or paper, purporting to be a bank note, or of the nature, character, or appearance of a bank note, or calculated for circulation as a bank note of either of the banks of this State, or of any other Stale, of a denomination other than of the denomination of five dollars, ten dollars, twenty dollars, fifty dollars, hundreds of dollars, or thousands of dollars." And,
Cobb's New Digest, 102.
This action on the case qui tam, was brought in the name of the State upon the information of Philip A. Clayton, in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, to recover of the Bank of St. Mary's the penalty for issuing and passing three hundred change bills, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing Acts. On the 23d day of December, 1852, the cause came on to be heard and tried before Judge Iverson, when the Jury found for the plaintiff $47,500, with cost of suit.
During the progress of the trial, objections were taken to the declarations, to the evidence, to the refusal of the Court tocharge as requested by defendant\'s counsel, and to the charge as given.
We shall examine none of the numerous technical questions spread out upon this record. We should probably affirm the rulings of the Court below on most of them. The only points we propose to consider and decide, are
1. Whether the law under which this penal suit was prosecuted was repealed before the rendition of the judgment? And, 2. If so, does that repeal bar this action?
It would, in our judgment, be a waste of time to undertake to demonstrate that the Statutes of 1832 and 1835, were repealed by the Act of 1851-2. Pamphlet Laws, pp. 25, 26. The Act of 1832, was passed to prevent the circulation of bank bills under the denomination of five dollars; as ones, twos, threes, fours, as well as the fractional parts of a dollar; and imposes a penalty of $100 for every violation of its provisions.
But finding front experience, that the benefits intended to be secured to the currency of the country, were partially frustrated by the emission of bills between the denominations of fives, tens, twenties, fifties, hundreds and thousands, the Act of 1835 was passed to restrict the circulation exclusively to these numbers; and a forfeiture of $500, was inflicted on any bank, corporation, or individual, for each offence against its provisions.
The Act of 1835, enlarges the Act of 1832, by extending the prohibition to all but a certain description of hills, as well those above as those below the denomination of five dollars; and makes it more efficient and stringent, by substituting for the penalty of one hundred dollars, a fine of five hundred. The Act of 1835 includes every offence described in the Act of 1832, and creates new ones. Taken together, they prohibit, in toto, certainly, the emission or circulation of all change bills whatsoever. Let us turn now, to the repealing Act of 1851-2. It purports by its title, to be "An Act in relation to the issuing of change bills and private banking; for the punishment of the same, and to authorize the banks of this State to issue bills of certain denominations, and for other purposes."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spengler v. Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co.
...Anthony v. Penn,212 Ga. 292, 92 S.E.2d 14 and similar cases, and for the same reasons are not controlled by the rulings in Bank of St. Mary's v. State, 12 Ga. 475; Woodburn v. Western Union Tel. Co., 95 Ga. 808, 23 S.E. 116; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith, 96 Ga. 569, 23 S.E. 899; Western ......
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair
...Buckingham, 78 Conn. 423, 62 Atl. 616; Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149; O'Kelly v. Athens Mfg. Co., 36 Ga. 51; St. Mary's Bank v. State, 12 Ga. 475; Mix v. Railroad Co., 116 Ill. 502, 6 N.E. 42; Railroad Co. v. Adler, 56 Ill. 344; Thompson v. Bassett, 5 Ind. 535; State v. Youmans, 5 Ind. 2......
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair
... ... basis. Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Dunne v ... Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Moseley v ... Lee, 319 Mo. 976; Miners Bank v. Clark, 252 Mo ... 20; Commissioners v. Hamersley, 204 P. 445. (a) ... Delinquent tax laws and legislation relating to tax ... delinquents ... ...
-
Eiberger v. Martel Electronic Sales, Inc.
...the jury is required to return a verdict according to the law as given to it in the charge by the court. Code § 59-706; Bank of St. Mary's v. State, 12 Ga. 475, 497; Atlantic & B R Co. v. Bowen, 125 Ga. 460(2), 54 S.E. 105; Council v. Teal, 122 Ga. 61(5), 49 S.E. 806; Livingston v. Taylor, ......