Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne
| Decision Date | 18 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-7897,B-7897 |
| Parties | CITIZENS BANK OF BRYAN et al., Petitioners, v. FIRST STATE BANK, HEARNE, Texas et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Larry Temple, Austin, for petitioners.
Smith & Lamm, T. D. Smith, Houston, Mark White, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for respondents.
The First State Bank of Hearne was chartered by the State Banking Board in 1957, with its domicile in Hearne, Robertson County, Texas. Under date of May 17, 1976, the Bank applied for an amendment of its Articles of Association to change its domicile from Hearne to College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and to change its name to College Station Bank. College Station is located in the adjoining county of Brazos, a distance of 27 miles. College Station and Bryan, Texas, are located in Brazos County. The four existing banks in Bryan and College Station protested the application. 1 The State Banking Board, by a vote of two of its three members, approved the change in domicile and name by order dated October 18, 1976, whereupon the protesting banks sought judicial relief by appeal. The District Court, by judgment dated October 6, 1977, sustained the appeal and set aside the approval of the Board. Upon further appeal by the First State Bank of Hearne, and the State Banking Board, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and reinstated the order as valid. 569 S.W.2d 604. The four protesting banks are our Petitioners at whose instance writ of error was granted. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm that of the trial court.
The Articles of Association of a state bank are required to contain "The city or town and the county of its domicile." Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 342-304. Pursuant to an amendment in 1967, art. 342-314 provided at the time of the order of the State Banking Board here in question:
No state bank shall hereafter change its domicile without first having received approval for such change from the State Banking Board in the manner provided for the approval of an original application for a charter. 2
Rule number 055.03.08.001 was thereafter adopted by the State Banking Board:
A bank may not change its domicile without prior approval from the State Banking Board in accordance with Article 14, Chapter III of the Texas Banking Code. An application to change domicile shall be in writing and be filed with the Banking Commissioner. The application shall state the exact proposed new location and shall be supported with statements, exhibits, maps and other data, properly verified under oath. The application shall also include a statement regarding the estimated cost of the new facility. Each application for a domicile change shall be filed, set for hearing, have notice given, and be ruled upon in the same manner as provided for new charter applications.
The term "domicile" is not defined in the Code but it may be said that the domicile of a state bank is where it has been authorized to engage in the banking business and to serve a particular banking constituency. Clearly the change sought by the First State Bank of Hearne, i. e., from serving the City of Hearne, in Robertson County, for which it was originally chartered, to serving the City of College Station, in Brazos County, is a change in domicile to which the statute applies. Cf. City National Bank of Austin v. Falkner, 428 S.W.2d 429 (), Tex., 432 S.W.2d 689.
The statute requires that the approval for a change in the domicile of a state bank first be received from the State Banking Board in the manner provided for the approval of an original application for charter. Pursuant thereto the Board in its rule, quoted above, outlined the procedure it would require. Neither the statute nor the rule of the Board speaks expressly to the substantive issues to be resolved, and the question thus posed is one of first impression. We find the answer in the statutory scheme of regulation of banks and the reasonable intendments arising therefrom.
It is apparent from a reading of the Board order here that consideration was limited to the question of whether it was shown that public necessity required a new bank in College Station. Indeed, it can be fairly stated that as to the issue of public necessity, the Board determined the change of domicile application of the Hearne bank no differently from an original application to serve College Station, with no consideration given to the public necessity previously found to require the chartering of the First State Bank of Hearne in 1957.
But there is an inherent difference between the two proceedings. An original application invokes consideration by the Board of the public necessity with respect to the place to be served by a new bank. Article 342-305 provides in part:
Art. 342-305. Application for and Granting of Charters Approval
A. Applications for a State bank charter shall be granted only upon good and sufficient proof that all of the following conditions presently exist:
(1) A public necessity exists for the proposed bank;
(2) The proposed capital structure is adequate (3) The volume of business in the community where such proposed bank is to be established is such as to indicate profitable operation of the proposed bank;
(4) The proposed officers and directors have sufficient banking experience, ability and standing to render success of the proposed bank probable; and
(5) The applicants are acting in good faith.
The burden to establish said conditions shall be upon the applicants.
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 342-305 (1973).
A change of domicile application, on the other hand, by which approval is sought to move an existing bank from the place it was chartered to serve to a new and different banking community, invokes consideration by the Board of the public necessity in both locations. It is our view that the Legislature did not intend that the statutory responsibility of the Board would be one and the same in these differing circumstances. The First State Bank of Hearne sought a banking charter with Hearne and Robertson County as its domicile and was granted the requisite charter upon proof of public necessity and a reasonable probability of a profitable operation there. It was under the burden of establishing that the abandonment of this banking service would be consistent with the public necessity previously determined by the Board to require the service.
It is argued in behalf of the Board that while it might be agreed that in domicile change hearings there should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upton County, Tex. v. Brown
... ... Act and Appellee's, Larry Joe Brown, First Amendment rights. We affirm ... I. SUMMARY OF ... Sec. 2. A state or local governmental body may not suspend or ... City of Hearne, 810 S.W.2d 742, 743 (Tex.App.--Waco 1991, writ ... (Vernon 1994); Braugh v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust, 605 S.W.2d 691, 696-97 ... Colunga, 753 S.W.2d at 718; citing Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, Hearne, 580 ... ...
-
McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc.
... ... or licensed engineer or architect in this state performing or furnishing the design, planning, ... , 616 S.W.2d 187, 190 (Tex.1981); Citizen's Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, 580 S.W.2d 344, ... of due process and ensures that Texas citizens bringing a common law cause of action will not ... ...
-
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
...Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 63 (2012) (quoting Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, 580 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.1979) ) (alterations omitted). Construing “whoever” as the majority does creates a “gaping loophole” in our infringement l......
-
Cvn Group, Inc. v. Delgado
...TEX GOV'T.CODE § 311.023(1) (in construing a statute, court may consider object sought to be obtained); Citizens Bank of Bryan v. First State Bank, 580 S.W.2d 344, 348 (Tex.1979) ("The cardinal rule in statutory interpretation and construction is to seek out the legislative intent from a ge......