Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Resolved, That the incoming Central Council address a circular letter to members owing past dues, requesting them to pay on or before the first of October, 1893, what they owe, and that those failing to pay by the time stated, be stricken from the roll of membership."

We have a provision authorizing the President to strike members from the roll when they fail to pay their annual dues. There are a number of excellent and active members who take a hearty interest in the Association, who, through thoughtlessness, have failed to pay their dues, and, therefore, it is not advisable to enforce that provision. The Association is somewhat in debt, and we have ample assets to meet this owing us by members. We have enough to clear off this debt and leave the Association in good condition. The Central Council have considered the financial condition of the Association, and now propose this resolution.

It was moved that the resolution be adopted.
Motion carried, and the resolution adopted.

The Central Council then recommended the following for membership in the Association: H. M. Doak, Mat. W. Allen, J. M. Wilcox, Jr., Firman Smith, A. M. Tillman, Nashville; C. J. Moody, Wm. B. Bates, Thos. R. Myers, Ernest B. Cooper, Shelbyville; Robert Pritchard, J. B. Ledger, W. H. Boyle, R. B. Cooke, J. W. Elder, Jr., Wm. H. Russell, J. H. Barr, and J. B. Whitehead, Chattanooga; Jno. W. Yoe, Samuel G. Shields, M. E. Buckley, Knoxville; J. H. Early, South Pittsburg; Milton P. Jarnigan, Mossy Creek.

No objection being made, they were declared members of the Association.

THE PRESIDENT.-The next thing in order is a paper by Chancellor Gibson, on "Reforms Needed in our Chancery Practice."

H. R. Gibson. Mr. President and Gentlemen: It will be seen from the programme that my name appears twice, which makes me feel as though I was occupying a position of rather too much conspicuousness. I wish to say, by way of explanation, that I was requested by the President to prepare a short article to be read before the Association. That will account for the paper I am now about to read. In consequence of the

absence of the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, I was called upon by the Executive Council to take his place, being second on that committee, and that accounts for my second appearance on the programme, both of which, I assure you, was wholly unsought on my part, and unexpected. Still, I felt it my duty to respond to both calls. The paper now to be read is entitled "Reforms Needed. in our Chancery Practice." (See Appendix.)

THE PRESIDENT.-My object in soliciting particular members of the Association to the preparation and reading of these short papers was to invite and provoke discussion as to the merits, etc., as they occur to them at the moment. We would be glad to hear any gentleman on any thought that may be suggested by the paper read by Chancellor Gibson.

W. B. Swaney.—I believe that the paper of Chancellor Gibson is entitled to more than a passing notice. I have had some experience with one suggestion and one statute referred to, having investigated it at a recent term of our Chancery Court. I appreciate the necessity for some action. I believe there is a way of getting around § 5112 (M. & V.), which provides when a bill may be taken for confessed. One of these provisions is that a bill may be taken for confessed when a plea or demurrer having been overruled, and the defendant ordered to answer the bill, he fails to do so upon a rule given. Well, I had a case of that kind where I sued on a plain note of hand. The party came in and filed a frivolous demurrer, which was overruled. I was aware of the opinion expressed by Chancellor Gibson, that you are not entitled to a final decree on that until the next term of court. I was confronted by that statute. I did not move to set for hearing. I waited until the regular call of the docket, and, when it was called, I announced ready for trial. The defendant had not answered. I had taken a pro confesso, the rule day being past. The gentleman representing the defendant says, "Here is a statute saying you are not entitled to a judgment on a pro confesso." I took the position, after investigating it, that there is a difference between setting a case for hearing upon a pro confesso and trying a case after you have a pro confesso. I made the point that the case had been announced

ready for trial, and that the defendant had to show cause why I was not entitled to a hearing.

The question was brought before the last Legislature, and an effort was made to have this remedied. There was a bill, I believe, passed by the Senate and submitted to the House, but was not ratified by the House. No court, at that time, had considered that statute. Our Supreme Court has never considered the rule, as insisted by Chancellor Gibson. What has been the practice of the courts? I do not believe, until the last year or two, that I ever heard of the statute, and I believe now, even if it was brought up, the courts would use every effort in the world to get around it.

There is another reform which I think is needed, and that is in reference to taking proof-what is known as the four months rule-both parties being required to take their proof in advance. I think that should be amended, and that the defendant should not be required to take proof, unless the burden is upon him, until after the complainant has made his proof. Under the present rule, the complainant waits until the last day of the four months, and begins to take his proof. The court is called before the defendant has had time to take his proof. That rule should be changed, I think, so as to require the complainant to take his proof in chief within less than four months, say two or three months, upon all questions where the burden of proof is upon the complainant. In certain defenses, such as innocent purchaser, the burden is on the defendant. In such cases, the defendant should be required to take his proof within three months. It should be limited to two months, or one month. Let that be the case in all courts requiring simple petition and answer. Let the petition set out the facts of complainant's case as he wishes it, and the defenses be set up in answer as near as you can. I think this simplifies this method of pleading, and that is the only successful way. Let all these technical defenses be set up in the answer and petition.

I also think it is about time that some changes should be made in our chancery practice, though in the country it may not be needed as much as it is where we have the Chancery Court in session for a long time. The chancellors adopt rules in reference to the return of original process; and I believe, on

examination, that the chancellors have power to make rules for their practice in each chancery division, so as to require all original process to be returned for filing more than twenty days before the succeeding rule day, and so as to require original process to be returnable to that rule day, if filed within the twenty days, and returnable to the next rule day if not so filed. John M. Gaut.-In order that we may reap practical fruits from a paper so well prepared as Judge Gibson's, I think it should be referred to some appropriate committee to consider whether or not his suggestions, all or in part, should not be made the subject of some effort to have them enacted into a law. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Judicial Aministration and Remedial Procedure.

Motion seconded, and carried unanimously.

S. A. Champion.- Mr. President: It is a little early to adjourn, and I want at this point to refer to a particular statute. I allude to the statute passed in 1877, in reference to foreign corporations, and amended in 1891. At this time it is a very vital subject. The Supreme Court has passed upon certain parts of it, and has given two decisions-one at Nashville, in which they held that foreign insurance companies come within the provisions of the act of 1891, and another at Jackson, in which it has held that a foreign corporation could not enforce a contract made after this act went into effect, and before it had complied with it. In this case, the foreign corporation had furnished a certain amount of lumber, and undertook to enforce its lien, and the court repelled him, upon the ground that he had failed to comply with the act, at least so far as that he had furnished the lumber before compliance with the act. The vital question presented by this law is whether a foreign corporation becomes domesticated by filing with the Secretary of State, as required by this statute, and subjects itself to an ad valorem tax. This is one of the questions, as every practitioner knows, that our clients are very much exercised about.

Another question is as to what rights foreign corporations have to-day absolutely, and whether this act was intended to interfere with their business. It seems to me, if we can throw any light upon this subject, we should do so. Some companies are withdrawing from the State because they are required to

comply with it. The matter may, I think not improperly, be discussed and considered by this body. After duly considering the matter, I move, if it would be in order, that a committee of five be appointed to consider and report what effect this act would have upon foreign corporations, with directions to report to-morrow. I make this motion as there are members present who may not have thought about the matter very much, and, consequently, have not reached any definite conclusion about it. Foreign corporations are withdrawing. I think, perhaps, they are unnecessarily frightened. There is, however, some diversity of opinion as to this act. I therefore move that a committee of five be appointed to consider and report to-morrow the effect of this act upon foreign corporations.

A Member.-I desire to ask if you have noticed that there is a paper on this subject to-morrow?

S. A. Champion. Of course I cannot know in advance. This report need not be considered until after that paper is read. Mr. President, I would have postponed this question but for the fact that I saw this paper would not be read until to-morrow, and members of the bar who have not considered it could have an opportunity in the meanwhile to do so, and, if it does not come up until to-morrow, the report of this committee need not be considered until after that paper is read.

A. D. Marks.—I suggest that Mr. Watkins, who is to read this paper, will, in all likelihood, arrive by that hour, and that the programme be changed, and his paper read this afternoon, and this committee be appointed and the paper referred to the committee to make report in accord with it. I think it would have a very beneficial effect upon the interests that have been so frightened for this Association to discuss this matter, but I think it would be better for this committee to have this paper before them. I move that if Mr. Watkins is here the paper be read now.

A Member.-I would suggest that we ought to devote some little time to this, and if the Association should think the article in question was well timed, they should discuss it with some consideration. For myself, I want to say a few words about that article at the proper time.

A. D. Marks. I move that the paper of Mr. Watkins be

« AnteriorContinuar »