Dockstader v. Hirning

• Decision Date: 06 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 6121.,6121.
• Citation: 50 S.D. 264,209 N.W. 542
• Parties: DOCKSTADER v. HIRNING, State Superintendent of Banks.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

50 S.D. 264

209 N.W. 542

DOCKSTADER

v.HIRNING, State Superintendent of Banks.

No. 6121.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

July 6, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; John T. Medin, Judge.

Special proceeding in mandamus by W. H. Dockstader against John Hirning, as Superintendent of Banks. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Null & Royhl, of Huron, for appellant.

Krause & Krause, of Dell Rapids, for respondent.

GATES, P. J.

This is a special proceeding in mandamus, brought in the circuit court of Minnehaha county to compel the superintendent of banks to certify an alleged deposit in the People's State Bank of Canova to the depositors' guaranty fund commission. Hirning had refused to do that upon the ground that the claim was a loan and not a deposit.

Upon the return day to the alternative writ the defendant moved to quash the writ upon the ground that the circuit court of Minnehaha county had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or of the subject of the proceeding, and upon the ground that plaintiff's affidavit did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or sufficient to entitle plaintiff to relief. Accompanying the motion to quash was an affidavit by Hirning showing that the said bank, during its active period, had its place of business in Canova, Miner county, and that the settlement and winding up of the affairs of said bank were all being had in the circuit court of Miner county. The trial court denied the motion to quash, whereupon defendant answered, still preserving therein his objection to the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha court. The court found for plaintiff. From the judgment and an order denying new trial, defendant appealed.

[1] In Hanson v. Sogn, 208 N. W. 228, we held:

“The whole theory of the laws relating to the department of banking is that the exclusive possession and control of the property of an insolvent bank are in the superintendent of banks, subject to the authority of the circuit court of the county of the bank's domicile. ***

Clearly an authority, vested in the circuit judges of circuits other than that of the bank's domicile, to appoint a receiver or make orders touching the administration of the insolvent estate would be inconsistent with the power vested in the circuit court of the bank's domicile to supervise the superintendent.”

Minnehaha county is in the Second judicial circuit,...