Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank Zimmerman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank Zimmerman

8 S.E.2d 359, 194 S.C. 518, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 85

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 26, 1940

Docket15046

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 8 S.E.2d 359 (Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank Zimmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank Zimmerman, 8 S.E.2d 359, 194 S.C. 518, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 85 (S.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. J. Henry Johnson, Acting Associate Justice.

By this proceeding, petitioners-appellants seek a judicial determination that the Court of Common Pleas, and not the State Board of Bank Control, has jurisdiction over the liquidation of the Central Union Bank of South Carolina, which was, on June 20, 1933, by the Governor, acting with the advice of the State Board of Bank Control, declared to be insolvent and ordered into liquidation.

At their instance, the identical issue was presented to this Court in the cause of Dunlap & Dunlap v. Zimmerman, 188 S. C., 322, 199 S. E., 296, 301, by the appellants in the instant cause, and such issue was there decided agreeably to the contentions therein made by Messrs. Zimmerman and Barron, who, by this appeal, now seek a contrary adjudication.

In Dunlap’s case, supra, in a well-considered opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Fishburne, it was held: “We are of *532 the opinion that the intent and purpose of the law was to give to the State Board of Bank 'Control exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance in fixing and limiting attorneys’ fees, and may not be defeated or subverted by any party in interest by resort to the courts, unless such Board has refused to act, or has acted in such a way as results in an abuse of discretion. In such case the Courts of Common Pleas in this state would in a proper case have the power in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction to review the action of the Board.”

On Circuit, Judge Dennis held that the opinion in Dunlap’s case was susceptible of no other interpretation than that the present State Board of- Bank Control has jurisdiction, subject to review by the Court of Common Pleas, for failure to act or for an abuse of its discretion, over the liquidation of The Central Union Bank of South Carolina, with full power and authority to fix or limit the compensation to be paid to the petitioners-appellants, to supervise and control the liquidation of the institution, to require the petitioners to dispose of the remaining assets of the bank, and to complete the liquidation thereof within a reasonable time.

His decree, which will be reported,' is satisfactory to this Court, and needs no amplification other than the following: “It may be laid down as a general proposition that, where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S., 680, 15 S. Ct., 555, 558, 39 L. Ed., 578.

While they do not argue the issue seriously, appellants, in their brief, assert that the Board of Bank Control Act of 1936, if construed to give the State board jurisdiction over the liquidation of banks, would be unconstitutional for violation of State constitutional provisions for the separation of the judicial functions and the *533 vesting of such functions in the Courts, and also violative of both State and Federal Constitutions providing for due process of. law, and against the enactment of legislation impairing the obligation of contract, but we are cited to no authority for such contention, and our investigation shows that similar statutes in other jurisdictions have been held to be within the power of the legislative department to enact. We are unable to find any section of the State or Federal Constitutions of which the Act in question is violative. In view of the supervisory power of the Court of Common Pleas, it cannot soundly be urged that the actions of the board of bank control, as authorized by the Act of 1936 (Act No. 802 of the Acts of 1936), constitute an infringement upon the judicial functions of the Courts.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Bonham, Mr. Justice Fistiburne and Mr. Acting Associate, Justice E. H. Henderson concur. Mr. Justice Carter disqualified.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. J. Henry Johnson, Acting Associate Justice.

By this proceeding, petitioners-appellants seek a judicial determination that the Court of Common Pleas, and not the State Board of Bank Control, has jurisdiction over the liquidation of the Central Union Bank of South Carolina, which was, on June 20, 1933, by the Governor, acting with the advice of the State Board of Bank Control, declared to be insolvent and ordered into liquidation.

At their instance, the identical issue was presented to this Court in the cause of Dunlap & Dunlap v. Zimmerman, 188 S. C., 322, 199 S. E., 296, 301, by the appellants in the instant cause, and such issue was there decided agreeably to the contentions therein made by Messrs. Zimmerman and Barron, who, by this appeal, now seek a contrary adjudication.

In Dunlap’s case, supra, in a well-considered opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Fishburne, it was held: “We are of *532 the opinion that the intent and purpose of the law was to give to the State Board of Bank 'Control exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance in fixing and limiting attorneys’ fees, and may not be defeated or subverted by any party in interest by resort to the courts, unless such Board has refused to act, or has acted in such a way as results in an abuse of discretion. In such case the Courts of Common Pleas in this state would in a proper case have the power in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction to review the action of the Board.”

On Circuit, Judge Dennis held that the opinion in Dunlap’s case was susceptible of no other interpretation than that the present State Board of- Bank Control has jurisdiction, subject to review by the Court of Common Pleas, for failure to act or for an abuse of its discretion, over the liquidation of The Central Union Bank of South Carolina, with full power and authority to fix or limit the compensation to be paid to the petitioners-appellants, to supervise and control the liquidation of the institution, to require the petitioners to dispose of the remaining assets of the bank, and to complete the liquidation thereof within a reasonable time.

His decree, which will be reported,' is satisfactory to this Court, and needs no amplification other than the following: “It may be laid down as a general proposition that, where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S., 680, 15 S. Ct., 555, 558, 39 L. Ed., 578.

While they do not argue the issue seriously, appellants, in their brief, assert that the Board of Bank Control Act of 1936, if construed to give the State board jurisdiction over the liquidation of banks, would be unconstitutional for violation of State constitutional provisions for the separation of the judicial functions and the *533 vesting of such functions in the Courts, and also violative of both State and Federal Constitutions providing for due process of. law, and against the enactment of legislation impairing the obligation of contract, but we are cited to no authority for such contention, and our investigation shows that similar statutes in other jurisdictions have been held to be within the power of the legislative department to enact. We are unable to find any section of the State or Federal Constitutions of which the Act in question is violative. In view of the supervisory power of the Court of Common Pleas, it cannot soundly be urged that the actions of the board of bank control, as authorized by the Act of 1936 (Act No. 802 of the Acts of 1936), constitute an infringement upon the judicial functions of the Courts.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Bonham, Mr. Justice Fistiburne and Mr. Acting Associate, Justice E. H. Henderson concur. Mr. Justice Carter disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E.2d 359, 194 S.C. 518, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-central-union-bank-zimmerman-sc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack