American Water Softener Company v. Lankford
Decision Date | 05 January 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 418,418 |
Citation | 35 S.Ct. 184,59 L.Ed. 329,235 U.S. 496 |
Parties | AMERICAN WATER SOFTENER COMPANY, Appt., v. J. D. LANKFORD, A. D. Kennedy, W. F. Barber, and John J. Gerlach, Composing the State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. C. Wilfred Conard and L. J. Roach for appellant.
Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Messrs. W. A. Ledbetter and Joseph L. Hull for appellees.
Appellant, on June 8, 1912, deposited with the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Sapulpa the sum of $3,337.50. The bank issued to appellant a certificate of deposit for the sum in the usual form.
The bank, which, it is alleged, was entitled to the benefits of the Oklahoma bank guaranty law, subsequently failed and was closed and taken possession of by appellees, composing the state banking board. The certificate of deposit was presented to the banking board and payment demanded out of the depositors' guaranty fund, or, if that fund should be insufficient, that there be issued to appellant a certificate of deposit. Both demands were refused, and this suit was instituted to enjoin compliance with one or the other of the demands.
Motion was made by appellees to dismiss the bill on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action or of the persons of the defendants (appellees), the suit being one against the state of Oklahoma, without its consent, in violation of the provisions of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The motion was granted on the authority of the court's opinion in Farish v. State Bkg. Board [235 U. S. 498, 59 L. ed. , 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185].
This appeal was then prosecuted.
The questions in this case are the same as those discussed and decided in Lankford et al., Composing the State Banking Board, v. Platte Iron Works Company, No. 381, and on the authority of that case the decree in this is affirmed.
For reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion in Lankford et al. v. Platte Iron Works Company, this day decided, ante, 173, I am unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 81-2101
...state statute. See also Parish v. State Banking Board, 235 U.S. 498, 35 S.Ct. 185, 59 L.Ed. 330 (1915); American Water Co. v. Lankford, 235 U.S. 496, 35 S.Ct. 184, 59 L.Ed. 329 (1915). In Martin v. Lankford, 245 U.S. 547, 38 S.Ct. 205, 62 L.Ed. 464 (1918), the Court stated that the case was......
-
Hertz v. Knudson
...v. Platte Iron Works in two other cases decided at the same term. American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford et al., composing the State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 496, 35 S. Ct. 184, 59 L. Ed. 329; Farish v. State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 498, 3......
-
United States v. State of Oklahoma
...630, 112 Pac. 1000; Lankford v. Platte Irom Works Co., 235 U. S. 461, 35 Sup. Ct. 173, 59 L. Ed. 316; American Water Co. v. Lankford, 235 U. S. 496, 35 Sup. Ct. 184, 59 L. Ed. 329; Farish v. State Banking Board, 235 U. S. 498, 35 Sup. Ct. 185, 59 L. Ed. 330. No objection to jurisdiction is ......
-
Farish v. State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma No 446 State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma v. Farish No 447
...made in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co. [235 U. S. 461, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173] and American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford [235 U. S. 496, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184] and are disposed of by the decisions in those cases. It was there held that the banking board and ban......