
    *Saunders, &c., v. White & als.
    January Term, 1871,
    Richmond.
    Joynbs, J„ absent, sick.
    Liquidation of Banks — Statute.—The principles decided in the cases of Exchange Bank of Virginia, for Gamp, trustee, Sc. v. Knox, Sc., and Farmers’ Bank of Virginia, for Goddin, Sc. v. Anderson S Go., 19 Gratt. 739, re-affirmed.
    In May, 1867, David J., Saunders and Samuel C. Tardy, trustees of the Bank of Virginia, instituted an action of debt, in the court of Hustings of the city of Portsmouth, against Wm. White as maker, and John R. White and Arthur Fmerson as endorsers, of a negotiable note, dated the Sth of February, 1862, and payable eighty-eight days after date, for thirteen hundred and fifty dollars, and $2 65, charges of protest, which was discounted by the Bank of Virginia at Portsmouth. The plaintiffs claimed, as' trustees of the Bank in a deed made the 8th day of February, 1867, in pursuance of the act of the 12th of Februarjr, 1866, requiring the banks to go into liquidation.
    The defendants pleaded “nil debet,” and also a plea of set off; in which they say that, as to $1,633 of the debt in the declaration mentioned, the plaintiffs, as trustees under the deed of the bank, are indebted to them in the sum of $1,633, upon certain bank notes issued by the said bank, and payable to bearer, and acquired by the defendants since the said deed of assignment was executed, and since notice thereof to the defendants, and now held by them, &c. The plaintiffs objected to the filing of this plea; but the court overruled the objection; and they excepted.
    *Upon the trial, after the evidence had been introduced, and it was admitted that the note sued on was delivered to the plaintiffs after the deed of the bank was executed, that the Bank of Virginia was insolvent, and that its notes, offered as set off, were at the time of the trial at a current value of thirty-five cents in the dollar, and were acquired by the defendants since the institution of this suit, the plaintiffs moved the court to instruct the jury— to disallow the said offset on the aforesaid notes of the bank. But the court refused to give the instruction: and the plaintiffs excepted. «
    The jury found a verdict, in which they allowed the plaintiffs the amount of their debt, principal and interest, $1,859 05, and allowed the defendants the amount of the notes of the bank' — $1,633—as a set off, and ascertained the balance due to the plaintiffs to be $226 05. And for this sum the court rendered a judgment for the plaintiffs, with interest from the time of trial. From this judgment Saunders and Tardy obtained a supersedeas.
    Tazewell Taylor, for the appellants,
    submitted the case. There was no counsel for the appellees.
    
      
      See Bank of Va. v. Knox, 19 Gratt. 739; monographic note on “Banks & Banking” appended to Bank v. Marshall, 25 Gratt. 378.
    
   CHRISTIAN, J.,

read the judgment of the court.

This day came the plaintiffs by their counsel, and the court having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid, and the arguments of counsel, is of opinion that the questions involved in this case, having been definitely settled by this court, in its decision rendered at the last term, in the cases of “Exchange Bank of Virginia v. Knox, &c.,” and “Farmers’ Bank of Virginia v. Anderson, &c.,” and reported in 19 Gratt. 739; and the court, referring to its opinion in said causes, for the reasons for its action in this case, doth adjudge and Order, that the judgment of the said Hustings court for the city of Portsmouth *be reversed and annulled, and that the plaintiffs in error recover against the defendants in error their costs in said Hustings court. And this court, proceeding to enter such judgment as the said Hustings court ought to have rendered, doth adjudge and order, that the plaintiffs in error recover, against the defendants in error, the sum of one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars, together with two dollars and sixty-five cents, charges of protest, and interest from the 7th day of May, 1862, and their costs expended in the prosecution of their writ of supersedeas here.

Which is ordered to be forthwith certified to the said Hustings court of the city of Portsmouth.

Judgment reversed.  