Hansford v. Nat'l Bank Of Tif-ton

• Decision Date: 15 January 1912
• Docket Number: (No. 3,338.)
• Citation: 10 Ga.App. 270,73 S.E. 405
• Parties: HANSFORD. v. NATIONAL BANK OF TIF-TON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

73 S.E. 405

(10 Ga.App. 270)

HANSFORD.

v.NATIONAL BANK OF TIF-TON et al.

(No. 3, 338.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 15, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Banks and Banking (§ 232^*)—"National Bank"—Powers.

A "national bank" is a corporation, the powers of which are defined and limited by the acts of Congress authorizing the creation of these institutions.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Dec. Dig. § 232.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4661, 4662.]

2. Courts (§ 97*)—Rules of Decision—Former Decisions as Controlling.

The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are ultimate and paramount authority as to the powers and liabilities of national banks.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 329-334; Dec. Dig. § 97.*]

3. Banks and Banking (§ 261*)—National Banks—Ultra Vires Acts—Ratification.

A national bank cannot authorize or ratify an act absolutely ultra vires, committed by its agents or officers.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 991-1000; Dec. Dig. § 261.*]

4. Banks and Banking (§ 262^2-*)—National Bank—Officers.

Neither the directors nor other officers or agents of a national bank have authority to institute prosecutions for violations of the public criminal laws of the state, nor to cause requisition papers to be issued for alleged criminals. Such acts are entirely beyond the scope of the powers of a national bank, and liability does not attach against the bank for any attempt on the part of its directors, officers, or agents exercising any such powers on its behalf.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Dec. Dig. § 262.*]

Error from City Court of Tifton; R. Eve, Judge.

Action by J. D. Hansford against the National Bank of Tifton and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

C. C. Hall and Claude Payton, for plaintiff in error.

Fulwood & Murray and Hendricks & Christian, for defendants in error.

POWELL, J. Hansford sued the National Bank of Tifton for damages, alleging that the defendant procured one Bailey to swear out a warrant charging the plaintiff with the offense of carrying concealed weapons, to cause requisition papers to be issued thereon, whereupon the plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned in the state of Florida. It is alleged that the bank's officers knowingly and maliciously had this process issued, without probable cause, and for the purpose of extorting from him a sum of money. It is useless to enter upon any discussion of the question as to whether corporations may commit torts. It is well settled that they may. Hence, no doubt, there are some corporations that may commit the torts of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. This general question is not here involved. The specific question is as to the powers of a national bank and as to its capacity to commit the particular tort alleged in the petition.

National banks are corporations of limited capacity. They have no powers, except such as are given them expressly or by necessary implication by the acts of Congress passed in relation to that subject Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 11 Sup. Ct. 496, 35 L. Ed. 107.

2. Whenever the power or liability of a national bank is called into question, necessarily a federal question is involved, and consequently the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate and paramount authority on the subject; and all authorities of state courts to the contrary must yield. California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, 42 L. Ed. 198. These institutions are so far governmental agencies of the United States as that neither state statutes nor decisions can impose any liability inconsistent with the liability intended by the federal statutes as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States. An examination of the decisions of the federal courts on this subject discloses that the federal government is vigilant and jealous to protect the assets of these banks from diversion from those purposes for which these institutions are organized. The safety of these national banks and the keeping of their resources unimpaired from diversion by the acts or omissions even of their own officers and agents is a matter of federal concern.

3. If an agent or an...