Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Commission v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank

Fourth Circuit

Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Commission v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank

515 F.2d 154, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14820

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1975

Docket74-2156

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 515 F.2d 154 (Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Commission v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Commission v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank, 515 F.2d 154, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14820 (4th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

By the instant suit, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to prevent Farmers and Merchants National Bank from operating a drive-in banking facility approximately 204 feet from the .rear of the Front Royal branch banking office located at Main and Crescent Streets in the town of Front Royal, Virginia. The drive-in facility was physically separated from the branch bank by at least one public street and by other property not owned by the bank. Injunctive relief was sought on the ground that the drive-in facility was a “branch” bank and allegedly could not be established and maintained under applicable state law. 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) and (f).

In a thorough and carefully considered decision, the district court concluded that the question of whether a banking facility constitutes a “branch” is a question of federal law (First National Bank in Plant City, Fla. v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969)); and, applying federal law, it concluded further that the drive-in facility which was the subject of litigation was not a “branch” but an extension of an existing banking office, the maintenance of which was authorized under both state and federal law. We think that the district court was correct in its' conclusions for the reasons and the authorities set forth in its opinion. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

By the instant suit, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to prevent Farmers and Merchants National Bank from operating a drive-in banking facility approximately 204 feet from the .rear of the Front Royal branch banking office located at Main and Crescent Streets in the town of Front Royal, Virginia. The drive-in facility was physically separated from the branch bank by at least one public street and by other property not owned by the bank. Injunctive relief was sought on the ground that the drive-in facility was a “branch” bank and allegedly could not be established and maintained under applicable state law. 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) and (f).

In a thorough and carefully considered decision, the district court concluded that the question of whether a banking facility constitutes a “branch” is a question of federal law (First National Bank in Plant City, Fla. v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969)); and, applying federal law, it concluded further that the drive-in facility which was the subject of litigation was not a “branch” but an extension of an existing banking office, the maintenance of which was authorized under both state and federal law. We think that the district court was correct in its' conclusions for the reasons and the authorities set forth in its opinion. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 F.2d 154, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-of-virginia-ex-rel-state-corporation-commission-v-farmers-ca4-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack