Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
Decision Date | 16 November 1933 |
Citation | 5 F. Supp. 156 |
Parties | CAMPBELL v. CHASE NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK. UNITED STATES v. CAMPBELL. CAMPBELL v. MEDALIE, U. S. Atty. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frederick Barber Campbell, of New York City, pro se, in support of motion above mentioned and of demurrers.
Rushmore, Bisbee & Stern, of New York City (James F. Sandefur, of New York City, of counsel), for Chase Nat. Bank submitting to any order which the court might make in Equity No. 76 — 307.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Thomas E. Dewey, Samuel C. Coleman, and Ira Koenig, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of New York City, on the brief), amici curiæ in Equity No. 76 — 307, and in opposition to motions above mentioned in Campbell v. Medalie, Equity No. 76 — 337, and in opposition to demurrers in United States v. Campbell, Criminal No. 95 — 764 and No. 95 — 807.
In Campbell v. Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Equity No. 76 — 307, a decree will be made dismissing the complaint therein without costs, on the ground that this court has not jurisdiction of the cause, and, consequently, of course, the plaintiff's motions therein are in all respects denied.
In Campbell v. Medalie, Equity No. 76 — 337, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and a decree will be made dismissing the complaint therein, with costs, on the ground that there is an adequate remedy at law in the criminal proceeding, and that the cause, therefore, is wanting in equity; in consequence whereof the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite must fail and is hereby denied.
In United States v. Campbell, Criminal No. 95 — 764, and the superseding indictment, Criminal 95 — 801, I grant an order overruling the demurrer to the original indictment and the demurrer to the first count of the superseding indictment with the provision as to suspension of the operation of my orders hereinafter indicated.
I sustain the demurrer to the second count of the superseding indictment and grant an order dismissing that count.
I. The facts involved in these cases are simple.
1. On or about October 11, 1932, the complainant, Frederick Barber Campbell, a citizen of New York State and a resident of this city, having purchased thirteen bars of gold bullion, duly marked and numbered, deposited them for safe-keeping with the Chase National Bank of the City of New York as bailee.
On or about January 25, 1933, having purchased fourteen more bars of gold bullion, duly marked and numbered, Campbell deposited them also for safe-keeping with the Chase National Bank of the City of New York as bailee.
In respect of both these deposits, the Chase National Bank agreed in writing, in consideration of a reasonable fee, to take and maintain custody, as bailee, of the said bars of gold bullion and to return them to Campbell on demand.
The fee for these bailments was paid before Campbell made the demand hereinafter mentioned for the delivery of the twenty-seven bars of gold bullion to him.
2. On March 9, 1933, the President approved an "Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes" which Congress had passed (48 Stat. 1).
This act, so far as here relevant, reads as follows:
"" 12 USCA § 248 (n); 50 USCA Appendix §§ 5, 5a.
3. The President has issued four executive orders, purporting to have been made under authority of section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, just quoted. Of these only two are here in any way relevant, namely, the Executive Orders of April 5, 1933, and of August 28, 1933.
On April 5, 1933, the President issued his first executive order under the said Act of March 9, 1933. This order was a requisition order on gold, and read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Finn
...712, 715. The form of taking is immaterial, and it need not be in pursuance of a condemnation proceeding, Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1933, 5 F.Supp. 156, 172; See Campbell v. United States, 1924, 266 U.S. 368, 370-371, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328, for the power of eminent doma......
-
Jones v. First Minneapolis Trust Co. (In re Trusteeship of First Minneapolis Trust Co.)
...L.Ed. 983, 25 A.L.R. 971;Wheeler v. Greene, 280 U.S. 49, 50 S.Ct. 21,71 L.Ed. 160;Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 156. Our conclusion is that it is the duty of a corporate trustee, in the absence of directions [277 N.W. 909]in the trust instrument, to invest......
-
In re Trusteeship of First Minneapolis Trust Co.
...350, 41 S.Ct. 499, 65 L.Ed. 983, 25 A.L.R. 971; Wheeler v. Greene, 280 U.S. 49, 50 S.Ct. 21, 74 L.Ed. 160; Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 156. Our conclusion is that it is the duty of a corporate trustee, in the absence of in the trust instrument, to invest......
-
Bradford v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
... ... Title 28 United States Code, Section 41, subdivision (16), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (16); United States v. Campbell, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 156, 165, 166, affirmed Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank, 2 Cir., 71 F.2d 669, 94 A.L.R. 708 ... There is not any challenge as to the locus standi of the several plaintiffs in the several constituent suits or to the venue in which the suits were brought ... ...