Cooper v. Woodin, 6202.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1934
• Docket Number: No. 6202.,6202.
• Citation: 72 F.2d 179,63 App. DC 311
• Parties: COOPER v. WOODIN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

63 App. DC 311, 72 F.2d 179 (1934)

COOPER v. WOODIN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

No. 6202.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued May 17, 1934.

Decided June 18, 1934.

W. Bissell Thomas and J. W. Staggers, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Geo. P. Barse, Charles E. Wainwright, and Geo. W. Smith, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This appeal relates to a refusal by the Comptroller of the Currency to approve a plan presented by appellant for the reorganization and reopening of a District of Columbia bank, under section 207 of the Bank Conservation Act (48 Stat. 2), as amended (12 USCA § 207).

The bank in question is the United States Savings Bank, a West Virginia corporation, which was engaged in a general banking business in the District of Columbia for some years prior to the Presidential Proclamation of March 6, 1933 (12 USCA § 95 note), providing for the bank holiday. The bank was under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency by virtue of sections 298 and 299, title 5, D. C. Code of 1929.

On March 17, 1933, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency decided that it was not safe to license the bank to reopen and attempt to carry on an unrestricted banking business, and consequently he appointed a conservator for the bank under the provisions of section 203 of the Bank Conservation Act of March 9, 1933 (U. S. Code, tit. 12, § 203 12 USCA § 203).

The appellant, Wade H. Cooper, at the time in question, was the president of the bank, owning a majority of its capital stock, and was also a depositor, and on September 2, 1933, he began the present case by filing a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and various other officials of the Treasury Department. The plaintiff in his bill of complaint alleged that the defendants were about to merge the savings bank with a new bank named the Hamilton Bank, then in process of organization. He charged that the proceedings of the Treasury officers in order to accomplish that purpose were contrary to the lawful rights of the stockholders and creditors of the savings bank, and he prayed for a decree of injunction to prevent the defendants from carrying out such plan, and also prayed that they be enjoined from interfering with any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to enter into negotiations with the bank's depositors for the purpose of reorganizing and reopening the bank. Issue was taken by the defendants, and the case came on for trial, in the course of which the trial justice announced from the bench that he would not approve of the sale of the assets of the savings bank to the Hamilton Bank under the conditions then prevailing. The case, however, was continued for further hearing in respect to any plan of reorganization of the savings bank which might be proposed by the appellant.

Thereupon the appellant submitted a plan for the reorganization of the bank to the Comptroller of the Currency for his consideration under section 207 of the Bank Conservation Act, supra, wherein it was proposed by appellant that the depositors and creditors of the bank should waive and release the bank from payment of a certain proportion of their claims, and that certain unacceptable assets should be transferred from the bank and be trusteed for the benefit of the waiving depositors and creditors, that a distribution of the remaining assets should be paid to the depositors and creditors upon their unreleased claims, and the bank be permitted to resume operations under such plan.

The Comptroller of the Currency refused to approve the plan thus proposed, whereupon on September 30, 1933, appellant filed a second supplemental bill of complaint herein setting out his plan of reorganization with certain modifications, and praying that the defendants be required by mandatory injunction to approve of appellant's plan for the reopening of the bank.

The defendants, including the Comptroller of the Currency, filed their respective answers to the second supplemental bill of complaint denying appellant's right to a mandatory injunction as sought by him.

Testimony was heard upon the questions raised by the pleadings, and upon a consideration thereof the court denied the prayer of the bill and dismissed the same, with costs; whereupon the present appeal was taken.

The present question, accordingly, is whether the trial court erred...