Chase Manhattan Bank v. Sailboat Apartment Corp, 76-126

• Decision Date: 01 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-126,76-126
• Citation: Chase Manhattan Bank v. Sailboat Apartment Corp, 429 U.S. 911, 97 S.Ct. 300, 50 L.Ed.2d 278 (1976)
• Parties: The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK v. SAILBOAT APARTMENT CORP. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

429 U.S. 911

97 S.Ct. 300

50 L.Ed.2d 278

The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

v SAILBOAT APARTMENT CORP. et al

No. 76-126

Supreme Court of the United States

November 1, 1976

On petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District.

Summary Disposition of the Court.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida is vacated, and the case is remanded for a determination of whether petitioner has waived the protection of the venue provision of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 94.SeeNational Bank of North America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., 425 U.S. 460, 96 S.Ct. 1632, 48 L.Ed.2d 92(1976).

Mr. Justice STEVENS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.

The Court's action in this case is not supported by the precedent on which it relies.In National Bank of North America, the Utah Supreme Court erroneously held that § 94 was "permissive and not exclusive."We remanded because that court had not reached the waiver issue in its previous opinion.In the present case, however, the state courts have given no explanation for their rejection of petitioner's venue claim.A remand in this case can only rest on the unwarranted assumption that the state courts relied on some ground other than waiver.The pres- umption, however, should be that the state courts recognized and relied on the strongest argument in favor of their holding, in this case, the waiver argument.^*

I am therefore unable to concur...