{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2498, "word_count": 440, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9815999865531921], "ccnet_perplexity": [843.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The circuit court for this county, Judge BKAoe presiding. has for the last few days, had very in. terssting question under examination in regard 10 certain suits brought by tho Bank Commissioners for the Branch Bank at this place. The question, as we understand it., s 10 thst nature of lhe cer- sihcate produced that the notes sued on are realy the property of ihe Bank, which is necessary to give the c"uri jurisdiction in the summary remedy s-ane,l by the charter The act of the last ture gave tue present commissioners the power to make the certificate themselves, or to appoint an agent or attorney certify the fact. In accordance with tho view eff the law taken by the commis they forwarded to Mir. Holcombe letter of attor. ney, authorizing him to make the certificate "for them and in their own names." Acting in strict conformity with that authority their agent made the certificates in the names of the cou,miss toners, signing himself as their attorney.

 After full and deliberate argument, the court de- cided that the act oi assembly did authorize the appointment of an attorne, to make t6cate of a act in Ms of another, but that the pain iaten. ton of ihe law was that agent might he appointed swn knowiedgs Az we understood tn. decis,on of tho couf1 u resteh us opnion upon the familiar pricipe that man cannot deputize an agent to swear to- or certify statement of which he has not himself personal knowledge.

 Alter this form of certificate was reported, tlie attorneys for the Bank offered another one signed by Mir. Holcombe himself the agent of the com. missioners, certifying the fact of his knowledge- The rejected ihis also, the power of altor- ney produced did not authorize such an act by the aEest.

 The Bank attorney then offered another certificate signed by himself, which was also rejected on the ground tha. an attorney at law had not the specific powers in that capacity as an attorney in fact for his client. Various other forms of certificates were offered nearly similar to the former, all of which were rejected for the reasons

 The court gave judgment for the defendant. be- of the of iursd .ton, and the Bank attor. ney gave notice that he would take the case io tho Supreme Court. As all the other Bank suits which were defended were subject to the same objection, the court granted the bank leave to continue them ill the spring to await the decision in the case taken up. Some sixty cases we understood were laid over. involving a large amount of money.