Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Republic National Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Republic National Bank

25 A.D.2d 645, 268 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 645 (Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Republic National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Republic National Bank, 25 A.D.2d 645, 268 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 4, 1965, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the order of reference vacated. Defendant Republic National Bank of Dallas is a national bank. The venue of an.action against a national bank is governed by section 94 of title 12 of the United States 'Code. Said statute provides that actions and proceedings against a national bank may be had “ in any .State * * * court in the county * * -. • in which ” it is located. A national bank is located and established in the county specified in its charter as its principal place for doing business. (Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank, 81 F. 2d 19, cert. den. 298 U. S. 677.) The charter of said defendant bank establishes and locates the bank in Dallas County, 'Texas. The provisions of the Federal statute are mandatory upon the State courts. (Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 562; Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U. S. 591.) It does not appear and it is not urged that defendant bank has waived the venue privilege specifically as to this action. (Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141.) In the absence of express consent to be sued in the forum State, a national bank does not waive the Federal venue privilege by doing business of the nature engaged in by defendant. (See Olberding v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 346 U. S. 338, 341-342.)

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and 'Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered October 4, 1965, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the order of reference vacated. Defendant Republic National Bank of Dallas is a national bank. The venue of an.action against a national bank is governed by section 94 of title 12 of the United States 'Code. Said statute provides that actions and proceedings against a national bank may be had “ in any .State * * * court in the county * * -. • in which ” it is located. A national bank is located and established in the county specified in its charter as its principal place for doing business. (Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank, 81 F. 2d 19, cert. den. 298 U. S. 677.) The charter of said defendant bank establishes and locates the bank in Dallas County, 'Texas. The provisions of the Federal statute are mandatory upon the State courts. (Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 562; Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U. S. 591.) It does not appear and it is not urged that defendant bank has waived the venue privilege specifically as to this action. (Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141.) In the absence of express consent to be sued in the forum State, a national bank does not waive the Federal venue privilege by doing business of the nature engaged in by defendant. (See Olberding v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 346 U. S. 338, 341-342.)

Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and 'Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 645, 268 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-leedom-carpet-co-v-republic-national-bank-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack