Grant v. Spokane Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 05 September 1891 |
| Parties | GRANT v. SPOKANE NAT. BANK et al. |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington |
J. C. McKinstry, for plaintiff.
P. H. Winston and H. M. Herman, for defendants.
The object of this suit is to control the official conduct of the receiver of a national bank appointed by a comptroller of the currency, and acting under authority of the national banking laws, in so far as to secure a particular application of a portion of the funds in his official custody in satisfaction of a claim of the plaintiff against the insolvent bank for money received by it as a collecting agent. I hold that the bank is only a nominal party. The receiver must defend, as he is the one who will be held accountable for any unlawful or unauthorized application or disposition of the money which the plaintiff is endeavoring to secure; and his defense must rest upon a just interpretation of the laws of the United States, for, as he holds his office under national authority, his conduct must be regulated by the national laws. From the premises, and upon principles supported by the highest authority, the conclusion necessarily follows that the suit is one of which a circuit court of the United States is invested with jurisdiction by the clause of the act giving jurisdiction of suits of a civil nature 'arising under the * * * laws of the United States. ' Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 F. 209; Armstrong v. Trautman, Id. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, Id. 277; Sowles v. Witters, 43 F. 700; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257-264; Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135-141; Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U.S. 421-423, 3 S.Ct. 289; Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 11, 5 S.Ct. 1113; Bachrack v. Norton, 132 U.S. 337, 10 S.Ct. 106; Reagan v. Aiken, 138 U.S. 109, 11 S.Ct. 283; Bock b. Perkins, 139 U.S. 630, 11 S.Ct. 677. It is my opinion, therefore, that this case was lawfully removed to this court from the superior court of Spokane county, in which it was commenced, and the plaintiff's motion to remand will be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
...649. Other lower courts, recognizing that limitation and also the distinction with respect to receivers of national banks, Grant v. Spokane Nat. Bank (C. C.) 47 F. 673, refused to permit removal in suits against receivers appointed only in exercise of the general equity jurisdiction of fede......
-
Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway
...628, 43 L.Ed. 920; In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 443, 458, 459, 17 Sup.Ct. 385, 41 L.Ed. 782; Armstrong v. Trautman (C.C.) 36 F. 275; Grant v. Bank (C.C.) 47 F. 673. The same bring actions by or against a shareholders' agent under the same rule. He is chosen under the same act of congress. He is......
-
Wood v. Drake
...and this is so even when there is no disputed question of federal law in the case (Bock v. Perkins, 139 U.S. 628, 11 Sup.Ct. 677; Grant v. Bank, 47 F. 673); and I hold that a case which an attack upon the official acts of a United States marshal is made covertly, by suppressing the facts wh......
-
Jewett v. Whitcomb
...This is the view held in Central Trust Co. of New York v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co., 59 F. 523; Hurst v. Cobb, 61 F. 1; and Grant v. Bank, 47 F. 673. The motion to remand must be ...