Corwin Bachtel v. Frank Wilson

• Decision Date: 07 January 1907
• Docket Number: No. 446,446
• Citation: 204 U.S. 36,51 L.Ed. 357,27 S.Ct. 243
• Parties: CORWIN D. BACHTEL, Plff. in Err., v. R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

204 U.S. 36

27 S.Ct. 243

51 L.Ed. 357

CORWIN D. BACHTEL, Plff. in Err.,

v R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio.

No. 446.

Argued November 14, 15, 1906.

Decided January 7, 1907.

The sole question in this case, as stated by counsel for plaintiff in error, is whether the following section of the statutes of Ohio contravenes § 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

'Every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any banking company who shall embezzle, abstract, or wilfully misapply any of the moneys, funds, or credits of such company, or shall, without authority from the directors, issue or put forth any certificate of deposit, draw any order or bill of exchange, make any acceptance, assign any notes, bonds, drafts, or bills of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree, or shall make any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the company, with intent in either case to injure or defraud the company, or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the company, or any agent appointed to inspect the affairs of any banking company in this state, shall be guilty of an offense, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in the peni- tentiary, at hard labor, not less than one year nor more than ten years.' Section 30, act of March 21, 1851, entitled, 'An Act to Authorize Free Banking,' as amended April 24, 1879, 76 Ohio Laws, 74; 2 Bates's Anno. Stat. (Ohio) 6th ed. §§ 3821-3885.

Plaintiff in error, who was cashier of the Canton State Bank, a bank incorporated under the above 'free banking' act, was indicted in the court of common pleas of Stark county for a violation of this section. A demurrer to the indictment having been overruled, he, before arraignment, sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of that county. Thereafter, the final judgment of the supreme court of the state in that proceeding having been adverse, he brought the case here on this writ of error.

Mr. William A. Lynch for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles C. Upham and John W. Craine for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

Counsel predicate the unconstitutionality of this statute, not on its provisions standing by themselves, but on its relation to other statutes.

On February 26, 1873 (70 Ohio Laws, 40), an act was passed in terms incorporating savings and loan associations, but with powers such as in fact authorized the carrying on of ordinary commercial banking. Under this statute a few institutions were organized. In 1880 a general incorporation law was enacted (Rev. Stat. Ohio 1880, § 3235 and following), and under it many banks were formed. In addition the banking statistics of the state show that there are several banks owned by unincorporated stockholders, copartnerships, or individuals. Now, in no statute, save the free banking act, is there any section with provisions kindred to those in § 30, above quoted, and the contention is that the plaintiff in error was denied the 'equal protection of the laws' guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in that he was subject to prosecution and punishment for matters and things which, if done by a cashier of any similar institution, whether unincorporated or incorporated under the statutes of Ohio other than the free banking act, would not subject him to punishment. The cashiers of such other institutions are charged with duties substantially the same as those of this plaintiff in error, and yet the one may be punished for a violation of those duties and the others not. Can the state single out a few men and punish them for acts, when for like acts others are free from liability?

No opinion was filed by the supreme court of the state, and we, therefore, are not advised of the grounds upon which that court held § 30 valid; yet that court did hold it valid, and in the face of the same objections that are made to it here. If 'any banking company,' as found in the free banking act, is applicable to every banking institution, no matter under what statute organized, there is no violation of the equal protection of the laws. Counsel for plaintiff in error contend that the supreme court could not have given so broad a meaning to those words, because they are in a section treating of crimes, and the rule of strict construction, which is universal in respect to criminal statutes, forbids its extension to institutions other than those incorporated under the act of which it is a part; because the title of the original act, 'An Act to Authorize Free Banking,' limits the scope of the statute, and therefore the applicability of...