Broadway Nat. Bank v. Linwood State Bank, 54582
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 296 |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54582,54582,2 |
| Parties | BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Company, Appellant, v. LINWOOD STATE BANK, a Missouri Banking Corporation, and C. W. Culley, Commissioner of Finance, State of Missouri, Respondents |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Eugene P. Mitchell, Lee E. Stanford, Kansas City, for appellant, Shook, Hardy, Ottman, Mitchell & Bacon, Kansas City, of counsel.
Dick H. Woods, Kansas City, for respondent Linwood State Bank, Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, Kansas City, of counsel.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., John C. Craft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson, City, for respondent.
This appeal presents for review a determination of the Circuit Court of Jackson County affirming the action of the State Bank Board which in turn affirmed the action of the Commissioner of Finance to permit relocation of Linwood State Bank from its present location to a location at Armour and Main in Kansas City, Missouri. The parties will be referred to herein as Linwood, Broadway, Bank Board and Commissioner.
The bone and marrow of this appeal involves two points: First, is there competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record to support the administrative findings. Second, is the action of the Commissioner in issuing a contingent approval of the change in location of the respondent bank authorized by law.
The issue posed by the first point may be narrowed by accepting the statement made in appellant's brief concerning the issue. Appellant argues that 'the convenience and needs of the Armour-Main area do not justify and warrant relocation * * * and the probable volume of business * * * is not sufficient to insure and maintain the solveny of Linwood and of existing banks in the community without endangering the safety of any bank in the locality as a place of deposit of public and private moneys.'
Many cases hold that such a contention requires that we examine the record to determine if there has been adduced competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record to support the administrative findings. Article V, Section 22, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S.; Wood v. Wagner Electric Corporation, 355 Mo. 670 197 S.W.2d 647; St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, Mo., 406 S.W.2d 644.
Upon the hearing before the Bank Board, a voluminous record was compiled dealing primarily with the demographic features of the mid-central portion of the Kansas City metropolitan area. It is very difficult to condense this testimony into any sort of readable statement of facts because the experts who testified relied heavily upon statistical detail. Both sides used maps and areas to demonstrate their points and since they prepared these independently, the areas and statistics drawn therefrom do not permit comparison without virtual duplication of the transcript within this opinion. It is sufficient for the determination of this appeal to say that the witnesses for the respective parties were in conflict as to the basic facts of economic life for the banking institutions involved in this appeal. Appellant's witnesses testified that upon thir analyses and survey of the rate of growth within the area they defined as the critical one, the growth would not justify the location of the Linwood Bank at its proposed site. Witnesses for Linwood, upon the basis of the statistical material presented to them, equally urgently contended that growth in the area was more than sufficient to justify relocation and that after such relocation all in the area would enjoy a healthy competitive situation which would fairly divide the potentially increased volume of business and would serve the convenience and needs of the community by the proposed relocation. There is thus presented a square conflict in the evidence before the State Banking Board. It is apparent from an examination of all the evidence offered that the real area of dispute between the proponents and their experts is in the definition of the trade area of the respective institutions. Linwood's evidence presented detailed statistics of its present activities in the area based on the records of its bank and the growth factors in population and business activity within that specific area. Broadway, on the other hand, made no attempt in its proof to give evidence on the more restricted area as to population and economic growth, but attempted to relate evidence concerning an area described as the 'zip code area' to the narrower, more restricted 'trade area.'
Upon this evidence, the Bank Board found that 'the rate and amount of new construction, the number, income and occupational characteristics of people residing * * * number and nature of business concerns * * * located in the area * * * their convenience and needs * * * are sufficient to warrant and justify the opening of a bank at that location.'
This finding is, in our view, based upon competent and substantial evidence and it matters not that there may have been evidence which would have supported a finding to the contrary. Doughton v. Marland Refinding Mo., 331 Mo. 280, 53 S.W.2d 236, 241.
On the other issue, Broadway claims there is not substantial and competent evidence that the probable volume of business is sufficient to insure and maintain solvency and safety of the bank as a place of deposit. The Bank Board found specifically against Broadway's contention. Furthermore, all of the witnesses except one, including three officers of Broadway, support this finding. The only evidence to the contrary was the opinion of one of Broadway's witnesses who claimed that Broadway's earnings would be 'adversely' affected, and that if this were 'projected' that 'ultimately' it could not meet its obligations. The Board had the right, as it obviously did, to accord the testimony of the officers of Broadway greater weight than this rather speculative statement.
We defer to the Bank Board's finding, since it unquestionably is based on competent and substantial evidence.
We therefore hold that the rulings below, insofar as they are challenged as not being supported by competent and substantial evidence, are affirmed.
The second point to be determined is the legal effect and property of the action of the Commissioner in granting approval to the application of Linwood contingent upon submission of a resolution from the shareholders amending the articles of agreement and the recording of the same. This action of the Commissioner was taken pursuant to an investigation and examination as required by Section 362.325(7), 1 which provides as follows:
Boardway urges that the 'contingent' approval of the Commissioner affirmed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshfield Community Bank v. State Banking Bd., s. 9240
...it matters not that there may have been evidence which would have supported a finding to the contrary.' Broadway National Bank v. Linwood State Bank, 456 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Mo.1970). Here, again, respondent questions the weight of the evidence before the Board and the credibility of those who......
-
Live Stock State Bank, Artesian, Application of, s. 11884
...and approval by the state banking board. Application of Bank of Rhame, 1975, N.D., 231 N.W.2d 801; Broadway National Bank v. Linwood State Bank, 1970, Mo., 456 S.W.2d 296; City National Bank of Austin v. Falkner, 1968, Tex.Civ.App., 428 S.W.2d 429. Unfortunately, we do not have such a speci......
-
Blue Ridge Bank v. State Banking Bd.
...banks were added to the section (then § 7973, R.S.Mo 1939) in 1941. 2 Only one decision since that amendment (Broadway National Bank v. Linwood State Bank, 456 S.W.2d 296 (Mo.1970)) has dealt with a proposed bank relocation under § 362.325(7), but the court was not required to, and did not,......
-
Glasnapp v. State Banking Bd.
...of Kansas City v. Jackson County State Bank, supra; Marshfield Community Bank v. State Banking Board, supra; Broadway National Bank v. Linwood State Bank, 456 S.W.2d 296 (Mo.1970). In keeping with the doctrine announced by those cases, the findings here under attack will be reviewed to asce......