Donald v. Bird, 7988-7990.

Decision Date08 September 1936
Docket NumberNo. 7988-7990.,7988-7990.
Citation85 F.2d 663
PartiesDONALD v. BIRD. SAME v. WAGER. SAME v. CUMMING.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Stephen D. Monahan, of Nogales, Ariz., for appellant.

Duane Bird, in pro. per., James V. Robins, and Thomas L. Hall, all of Nogales, Ariz., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, as receiver of a national banking association, brought these actions against appellees, stockholders of the association, to enforce the liability created by section 23 of the Act of December 23, 1913, c. 6, 38 Stat. 273, 12 U.S.C.A. § 64, which provides: "The stockholders of every national banking association shall be held individually responsible for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such association, each to the amount of his stock therein, at the par value thereof in addition to the amount invested in such stock."

Appellees demurred to the complaints, on the ground that the actions were barred by the statute of limitations. The District Court sustained the demurrers, and, no request being made for leave to plead further, thereupon entered judgments dismissing the actions. From the judgments so entered, these appeals are prosecuted.

There is no federal statute of limitations governing actions of this character. They are governed, therefore, by the applicable state statute. Curtis v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260, 262, 42 S.Ct. 100, 66 L.Ed. 222; McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U.S. 154, 158, 25 S.Ct. 410, 49 L.Ed. 702, 3 Ann.Cas. 500.

What is the applicable state statute of limitations in Arizona? Appellant contends it is section 227 of the Revised Code of 1928, which provides: "The stockholders of every bank1 shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts and engagements, of such corporation or association, to the extent of the amount of their stock therein, at the par value thereof, in addition to the amount invested in such shares or stock. In case of the dissolution or liquidation of any bank, the constitutional2 and statutory liability of the stockholders must be enforced for the benefit of the creditors of such bank by the superintendent of banks or by any receiver. The action to enforce such liability shall be commenced within three years after the closing of such bank."

Section 227 is not a general statute of limitations. It refers specially to a liability created by the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. The limitation therein prescribed applies specially and solely to actions brought to enforce that liability. It does not apply to actions brought, as these actions are, to enforce a liability created by an act of Congress.

Appellant contends, however, that if section 227 is inapplicable, the applicable statute is section 2060 of the Revised Code of 1928, which provides: "There shall be commenced and prosecuted within three years after the cause of action shall have accrued, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. Debt where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing. ......"

This contention must be rejected. These are not actions for debt, but are actions to enforce a liability created by statute. McClaine v. Rankin, supra, 197 U.S. 154, at page 161, 25 S.Ct. 410, 49 L.Ed. 702, 3 Ann.Cas. 500; McDonald v. Thompson, 184 U.S. 71, 73, 22 S.Ct. 297, 46 L.Ed. 437. See, also, Forrest v. Jack, 294 U.S. 158, 162, 55 S.Ct. 370, 79 L.Ed. 829, 96 A.L.R. 1457; Christopher v. Norvell, 201 U.S. 216, 226, 26 S.Ct. 502, 50 L.Ed. 732, 5 Ann.Cas. 740; Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U.S. 258, 261, 22 S.Ct. 463, 46 L.Ed. 528; Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U.S. 138, 151, 10 S.Ct. 290, 33 L. Ed. 531; United States v. Knox, 102 U.S. 422, 424, 26 L.Ed. 216. The applicable statute, therefore, is section 2058 of the Revised Code of 1928, which provides: "There shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Smith v. Cremins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 Septiembre 1962
    ...v. Borax Consol., Ltd., 185 F.2d 196, 207 (9th Cir. 1950); Culver v. Bell & Loffland, Inc., 146 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1944); Donald v. Bird, 85 F. 2d 663 (9th Cir. 1936); Alvado v. General Motors Corp., 194 F.Supp. 314 (S.D. N.Y.1961); Farris v. San Diego Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 140 F.Supp. 703......
  • Williamson v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 27 Mayo 1940
    ...U.S. 154, 25 S.Ct. 410, 49 L.Ed. 702, 3 Ann.Cas. 500; Pufahl v. Estate of Parks, 299 U.S. 217, 57 S.Ct. 151, 81 L. Ed. 133; Donald v. Bird, 9 Cir., 85 F. 2d 663; and with especial reference to the antitrust laws, Glenn Coal Co. v. Dickinson Fuel Co., 4 Cir., 72 F.2d 2 Farmers' Bank v. Gardn......
  • Howell v. Fogg
    • United States
    • New Jersey Circuit Court
    • 7 Julio 1939
    ...that the divergency of opinion is ascribable to the materially different provisions of the statutes in those jurisdictions. Donald v. Bird, 9 Cir., 85 F.2d 663; Johnson v. Greene, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 683 are In Strasburger v. Schram, supra, Judge Groner observed : "We take judicial notice of th......
  • Schram v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 Junio 1938
    ...the cause was barred by Rev.Code of Arizona 1928, § 2058(3), which limits the bringing of such causes of action to one year. Donald v. Bird, 9 Cir., 85 F.2d 663. However, there is yet to be considered the contractual theory of the case. An action for debt not evidenced by a contract in writ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT