Grindley v. FIRST NAT. BANKDETROIT
| Decision Date | 10 February 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 7352.,7352. |
| Citation | 87 F.2d 110 |
| Parties | GRINDLEY et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANKDETROIT et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Irvin Long, of Detroit, Mich. (Goodenough, Voorhies, Long & Ryan, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellants.
Hugh L. Nichols, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx & Ginter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Monaghan, Crowley, Clark & Kellogg, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellees.
Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
About January 1, 1913, First National Bank of Detroit created the "Pension Fund of the First National Bank of Detroit" to provide pensions for its officers and employees, their widows and children. Rules and regulations adopted for the administration of the fund were in effect on February 11, 1933. On that date defendants Clark, Hoppin, McLeod, Monaghan, Shelden, Sweeny, and Wilson were trustees of the fund, and its assets of the face value of approximately $325,000 were in their custody and under their control. Section 20 of the rules and regulations provided:
The assets of the fund consisted of cash, bonds, and real estate mortgages. These assets originated in contributions by the bank, its employees, and certain other parties; and in amounts received, as interest on investments and bank balances, and from profits on the sale of securities. The total receipts of the fund from its creation to June 19, 1933, were $823,799.64. The total disbursements for the same period were $495,058.73, leaving a balance of $328,740.91.
The First National Bank-Detroit, the successor of First National Bank of Detroit, closed its doors on February 11, 1933. On May 11, 1933, the Comptroller of the Currency declared the bank insolvent and appointed defendant Thomas as receiver. Thomas entered upon the discharge of his duties and continued in the possession of all the books, records, and assets of the bank until August 15, 1934, when he was succeeded as receiver by defendant B. C. Schram.
Prior to February 11, 1933, plaintiffs Grindley, Kauffman, Laycock, Lokie, McClellan, Nichols, and Basil A. Lemke, the husband of plaintiff Mary Ann Lemke became eligible for retirement on pension and were granted pensions for life by the trustees of the fund, in accordance with the rules and regulations. Basil A. Lemke died on February 19, 1934, leaving the plaintiff, Mary Ann Lemke, as his widow. These plaintiffs received their pensions up to and including January, 1933, but have received nothing since. The amounts received by them and Basil A. Lemke together with the amounts each contributed to the fund are set out in the schedule.1
On June 19, 1933, defendant Thomas, being in possession, as receiver, of the assets of the fund, advised all pensioners thereunder that it was being discontinued and offered to pay each of them for the first eleven days in February, 1933, if they would release and discharge the trustees from any liability on account of its discontinuance. He took releases from two other pensioners, and from all employees of the bank who had contributed to the fund but had not been retired on pension, so that plaintiffs are the only persons making any claim against the assets of the fund except one party whose claim is not involved herein.
The rationale of plaintiffs' bill is that the matter is controlled by section 20 of the rules and regulations; that by virtue of this section the bank alone was authorized to discontinue the fund; that it had not taken any action, although it had power to act, because its insolvency and the appointment of the receiver did not dissolve the corporation; and that the fund therefore should be restored to the possession of the trustees and the plaintiffs should be paid their pensions therefrom until such time as the bank by affirmative action terminated its existence.
Plaintiffs challenge the authority of Receiver Thomas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushton v. Schram
...banks or their officers in the exercise of the powers bestowed upon them by the general government." See also Grindley v. First Nat. Bank-Detroit, 6 Cir., 87 F.2d 110, 112. We do not presume that the Michigan legislature intended to disregard principles of comity between state and federal a......
-
Starr v. O'CONNOR
...U.S. 445, 2 S.Ct. 561, 27 L.Ed. 537; Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U.S. 275, 16 S.Ct. 502, 40 L.Ed. 700; Grindley v. First National Bank-Detroit, 6 Cir., 87 F.2d 110, 112) and that it was the lawful intent of Congress that no state escheat laws should prevent the distribution of unclaim......
-
Dinan v. First Nat. Bank of Detroit
...Bank, 161 U.S. 275, 16 S.Ct. 502, 40 L.Ed. 700; Deitrick v. Greaney, 309 U.S. 190, 60 S.Ct. 480, 84 L.Ed. 694; Grindley v. First National Bank-Detroit, 6 Cir., 87 F.2d 110, and the Congress having conferred upon the District Courts of the United States original jurisdiction of suits for win......
-
District of Columbia v. Wardell, 4762.
...to be collected. The National Banking Act is to be given a liberal construction so as to protect the depositors. Grindley v. First National Bank-Detroit, 6 Cir., 87 F.2d 110; Lawrence National Bank v. Rice, 10 Cir., 83 F.2d 642; Korbly v. Springfield Institute for Savings, 245 U.S. 330, 38 ......