Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank

81 U.S. 383, 20 L. Ed. 840, 14 Wall. 383, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1004
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 18, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by110 cases

This text of 81 U.S. 383 (Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 81 U.S. 383, 20 L. Ed. 840, 14 Wall. 383, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1004 (1872).

Opinion

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD

delivered the opinion of the court.

Associations for banking, formed pursuant to the act to’ provide a National currency, and duly authorized by the Comptroller of the Currency to commence the business of banking, become bodies corporate and have a succession for the period of twenty years from their organization, unless sooner dissolved according to the provisions of their articles of association, or by the act of the shareholders owning two-thirds of the stock, or unless the franchise shall be forfeited by a violation of the act under which the assoeiation was formed. Such an association is allowed to select, subject to certain conditions and the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, another such-association at which it will redeem its circulating notes 'at par, but the provision is that nothing in that Eection shall relieve any such association from its liability to redeem its notes in circulation at its own counter, at par, in *392 lawful money, on demand; and in ease of failure so to do, the holder may cause the same to be protested in one package by a notary public, unless the president or cashier of the association which issued the notes, or the president or cashier of the association designated as the place for redeeming the same, will waive demand and notice of protest and execute an admission in writing stating the amount demanded and the fact of non-payment, and it is made the duty of the notary forthwith to forward the admission or notice of protest, as the case may, be, to the Comptroller of the Currency for his information and action in the premises, Notes to a large amount, issued by the corporation defendants for circulation, were held by the corporation plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs presented the same to the defendants, for redemption, aud the defendants failing to redeem the same, the plaintiffs offered the notes for protest, but the defendants having waived demand aud notice of protest, aud having tendered an admission in writing stating the amount demanded and the fact of non-payment, the plaintiffs accepted the written admission, and the notary forwarded the same to the Comptroller of the Currency as required under such circumstances. Pursuant to the requirement of law the Comptroller of the Currency appointed a special agent to ascertain whether the facts set forth in the protest were true, and the agent so appointed having reported that the defendants had failed to redeem in lawful money their circulating notes when pajment thereof was duly and lawfully demanded, lie,,the Comptroller of the Currency, appointed a receiver of the delinquent association, with all the powers, duties, and responsibilities given to or imposed upon such an appointee in such case made and provided, and the record shows that the. receiver entered upon the duties of his office and took possession of all the books, records, and assets, real and personal, of the association,- and that he has ever since had the exclusive possession of the same, to be disposed of according to law. Before the commencement of the suit the Comptroller of the Currency caused notice to be published requiring all claimants to present aud make prcof ■ *393 of their claims against the delinquent association, and the record also shows that the plaintiffs presented the claim in controversy to the receiver for allowance, and that the receiver having disallowed the same, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the State court to recover the amount. Appropriate proceedings followed, as in an action of assumpsit, and the parties having been heard the subordinate court where the suit was brought made a finding of facts, but reserved the question whether the case ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and if not, what judgment ought to be rendered in the case, and all questions of law arising upon the facts found, for the opinion and advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Proper measures .were adopted to obtain the opinion and advice of the appellate tribunal, and they were duly received, and thereupon the subordinate court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the whole amount claimed'in the declaration. Proceedings in the nature of a writ of error were instituted by the defendants, by which the cause was removed into the Supreme Court of Errors, where the parties were again heard and the decision of the Court of Errors was that the judgment should be in all things affirmed. Einal judgment having been ren-dered in the State court, the defendants sued out a writ of error under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary-Act and removed the cause into this court.

Pour only of the-errors assigned will be examined, as the others, in the view of the ease taken by the court, either involve substantially the same considerations or present questions not re-examinable in this court under a writ of error to a State court. Briefly stated the errors assigned to be examined are as follows:

(1.) That the State court had no jurisdiction of the case or of the parties at the time the suit was commenced. '

(2.) That the defendant association prior to the institution of the suit had forfeited its franchise by a violation of the act under which it was formed and had been dissolved by the action of the Comptroller of the Currency.

(3.) That the defendant association could not he impleaded *394 at the time the action was commenced, as prior to that time the association was prohibited by the act of Congress from paying or satisfying any of its creditors.

(4.) That the decision of the receiver disallowing the claim of the plaintiffs was final and was not subject to review in the State court.

Support to the first proposition is supposed to be derived from the conceded fact that such associations are created by an act of Congress and that they are instruments of the National government intrusted with the power of carrying on the business of banking and of employing and circulating treasury notes as a National currency, subject .to the supervision and direction of the Comptroller of the Currency and of the Secretary of the Treasury. Banking associations, it is said,-were established as instruments by which the government may perform the trust of furnishing and regulating the National paper currency, and the argument is that inasmuch as they are instruments of the government to carry into effect a National purpose they cannot be impleaded in a State court. Confirmation of that view is ¿Iso attempted to be drawn from the fact that such associations are controlled by the Treasury Department, that all the notes, which they circulate as money ar.e received from the- Comptroller of the Currency, and that they cannot issue any instrument for circulation or use as money except the notes intrusted to them by the Comptroller of the Currency, as authorized by the act of Congress.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. 52 Park Associates
710 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG International, Inc.
811 F.2d 1209 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Carpenter v. Hall
352 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Texas, 1972)
Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau
371 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau
331 S.W.2d 349 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
The Jennings Sewer Dist. v. Pitcairn
187 S.W.2d 750 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1945)
In Re Freeman
27 A.2d 201 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1942)
Hardesty v. Fairmont Supply Co.
14 S.E.2d 436 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1941)
Genecov v. Wine
109 F.2d 265 (Eighth Circuit, 1940)
Consolidated Rendering Co. v. McManus
5 A.2d 923 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1939)
American National Bank v. Ames
194 S.E. 784 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1938)
City of Fort Worth v. McCamey
93 F.2d 964 (Fifth Circuit, 1937)
Sneeden v. Industrial Commission
10 N.E.2d 327 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1937)
Queenan v. Mays
90 F.2d 525 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)
Grindley v. First Nat. Bank-Detroit
87 F.2d 110 (Sixth Circuit, 1936)
Connolly v. First Nat. Bank-Detroit
86 F.2d 683 (Sixth Circuit, 1936)
Bailen v. Deitrick
84 F.2d 375 (First Circuit, 1936)
O'Connor v. Rhodes
79 F.2d 146 (D.C. Circuit, 1935)
Twyman McCarthy v. Smith
161 So. 427 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 U.S. 383, 20 L. Ed. 840, 14 Wall. 383, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-bethel-v-pahquioque-bank-scotus-1872.