Chesapeake Bank v. First Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 04 June 1874
• Parties: THE CHESAPEAKE BANK v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE, Garnishee of THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

40 Md. 269

THE CHESAPEAKE BANK v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE, Garnishee of THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 4, 1874

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

George H. Williams, for the appellant.

While it is not denied that Congress has full power to charter banks as and for instrumentalities of the Government, and to prevent State sovereignties from taxing them or otherwise interfering with their existence, yet it is not within the power of Congress to clothe them, as to their contracts and dealings with the world, with any special immunities and privileges exempting them in their said trade and intercourse with others from the laws and remedies applicable in like cases between other citizens. National Bank vs Commonwealth, 9 Wallace, 353.

The power to create these banks is justified as an act of constructive power; it is not pretended there is any express power given, but as where express powers are given, e. g. to lay and collect taxes, imposts, &c they are restricted to uniformity, they cannot create a favored contracting class in society not subject to the uniform rights and remedies as between other citizens of the Union. The order of the Court below quashing the attachment should be reversed and a procedendo awarded.

A Stirling, Jr., for the appellee.

The 57th section of the Act of 1864, and the 2nd section of the Act of 1873, are constitutional.

The appellant admits the constitutionality of the National Banking Act generally, but contends that the sections above mentioned, or at least section 2 of 1873, is unconstitutional, as giving the associations organized under the Act of 1864, privileges or immunities different from those of citizens generally in the States where their business is carried on.

If the constitutionality of the Acts of 1864 and 1873, generally, be conceded, then under all the principles governing the construction of the powers of Congress, the provisions of the 57th section of the Act of 1864, and the 2nd section of the Act of 1873, are on their face evidently appropriate and necessary, to carry out the powers which are admitted to justify the law generally; and not only this, but are wise and beneficial, and under no principle laid down by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, can they be held unconstitutional. M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; Livingston vs. Moore, 7 Peters, 469; National Bank vs. Commonwealth, 9 Wallace, 353; Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wallace, 533; Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wallace, 603; State vs. Buchanan, 5 H. & J., 362; Mayor and City Council vs. Board of Police, 15 Md., 376.

MILLER J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant on the 18th of September, 1873, caused an attachment on warrant to be issued out of the Superior Court of Baltimore City to affect the property and credits of the First National Bank of the City of Washington District of Columbia, as a non-resident debtor, which was laid in the hands of the First National Bank of Baltimore, as garnishee. In October following, the garnishee filed a motion to quash for reasons alleged, and from the judgment of ...