Anderson v. Love
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Smith, C. J. |
| Citation | Anderson v. Love, 169 Miss. 219, 151 So. 366, 153 So. 369 (Miss. 1934) |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | 30829 |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS |
December 5, 1933
APPEAL from chancery court of Alcorn county HON. JAMES A. FINLEY Chancellor.
Suit by J. S. Love, Superintendent of Banks, against F. F. Anderson and others, wherein defendants filed a cross-bill. From the decree, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
On suggestion of error.
Former judgment set aside in part, decree appealed from reversed and decree rendered in accordance with opinion.
For former opinion, see 151 So. 366.
The resolution directed to be reported follows:
Affirmed. Decree reversed and decree rendered.
W. C. Sweat, of Corinth, for appellants, contributing stockholder's.
This court seems never to have passed upon the question as to whether or not it is necessary for the superintendent of banks, in his official capacity, to determine that a bank is insolvent and make an assessment against its stockholders. Other jurisdictions having similar statutes to ours have passed upon the question, holding that it is a necessary prerequisite to the institution of suit by the superintendent of banks or the comptroller, as the case may be.
Tunnicliffe v. Noyes, 135 So. 505; Kennedy v. Gipson, 8 Wall. 498, 18 L.Ed. 476; Aldrich v. Skinner, 98 F. 375; Page v. Jones, 7 F.2d 541.
When our banking act was passed, the majority of the cases from the United States courts, construing the section of the National Banking Act had already been decided; and, when our legislature passed this statute, which is in all substantial respects, the same as the United States statute, it was adopted with full knowledge of the construction placed upon it by the United States Supreme Court and, in construing it, the court will put the same construction upon it which has been placed upon it by the federal courts before its adoption.
Yates v. Jones Nat. Bank, 51 L.Ed. 1002; Thomas v. Taylor, 56 L.Ed. 673; Corsicana Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 64 L.Ed. 141; Marquise v. Caldwell, 48 Miss. 23; Ingraham et al. v. Regan, 23 Miss. 226; 25 R. C. L. 1069, sec. 294; 59 C. J. 1065, sec. 627.
Stockholders of the bank, who had deposits in the bank at the time it closed, were entitled to have these deposits used as an offset, to be credited upon their stock liability.
Contemporaneous construction of statute by governmental department charged with its execution, while not controlling, is entitled to great weight.
Conard Ft. Co. v. Miss. State Tax Commission, 160 Miss. 185, 133 So. 652; I. C. Railroad Co. v. Middleton, 109 Miss. 199, 68 So. 146; Robertson v. Texas Oil Co., 141 Miss. 356, 106 So. 449.
While it is true that this construction, which had been placed...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Conway v. Mississippi State Bd. of Health, 43430
... ... v. Stone, 184 Miss. 409, 184 So. 428 (1938), and Anderson v. Love, 169 Miss. 219, 151 So. 366 (1933). The letters by the Secretary of the State Board of Health could not have the effect of altering the ... ...