In re Harris
| Citation | 27 F. Supp. 480 |
| Parties | In re HARRIS. |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1939 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Weisman, Celler, Quinn, Allen & Spett, of New York City (Murray C. Spett, Arthur Sheinberg, and Edmund P. Silver, all of New York City, of counsel), for trustee.
Mudge, Stern, Williams & Tucker, of New York City (George L. Trumbull and Randolph H. Guthrie, both of New York City, of counsel), for Chase Nat. Bank.
In examination of the bankrupt under section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 44(a), it developed that not long before bankruptcy he had transferred large sums of money abroad, apparently to a person who maintained a bank account with a London office of Chase National Bank. The trustee in bankruptcy served a subpoena duces tecum on the Chase National Bank, requiring it to produce a transcript of the account of the person with the London office of that bank. In response to the subpoena an officer of the bank appeared and stated to the referee that the main office here had no copies of accounts between the London branch and its depositors. The referee directed the officer to procure a transcript of the account from the London branch and produce it at an adjourned date. At the adjourned date counsel for the bank informed the referee that the bank had received a transcript of the account from its London office, but asked him to reconsider his order for production of the transcript. It was claimed that the bank was not subject to compulsory production of a transcript of an account between its London branch and a depositor. The referee on reconsideration ruled that the bank was not obliged to produce it, and certified to this court the question whether his ruling was correct. The relevancy of the document to a judicial inquiry into the acts, conduct or property of the bankrupt is not challenged.
There was testimony before the referee that the London branch conducts business under regulations laid down by the British banking authorities; that the branch is in charge of a vice-president appointed by the board of directors here; that it keeps a checking account with the main office here, keeps its own reserves and makes its own investments; that it does not ordinarily report to the main office on details of operations; that the only information concerning its accounts with depositors which is on hand at the main office is a list of the names of depositors.
The force of a subpœna for production of documentary evidence generally reaches all documents under the control of the person or corporation ordered to produce, saving questions of privilege and unreasonableness, and it makes no difference that a particular document is kept at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court that issues the subpœna. The test is one of control, not of location. In re National Public Utility Investing Corporation, 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 302, 303; In re Consolidated Rendering Co., 80 Vt. 55, 79, 66 A. 790, 11 Ann.Cas. 1069. See also Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The question then is whether a bank with its main office here may fairly be said to have control of papers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose Hall, Ltd. v. CHASE MANHATTAN OVERSEAS BANK.
...& Trust Co. v. National City Bank, 6 F.2d 762 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 269 U.S. 554, 46 S.Ct. 18, 70 L.Ed. 408 (1925) and In re Harris, 27 F.Supp. 480 (S.D.N.Y.1939)20 cited by Chase Overseas, were both decided under the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 601—604.21 Neither dealt with the q......
-
Rose Hall, Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Overseas Banking, Civ. A. No. 79-182.
...& Trust Co. v. National City Bank, 6 F.2d 762 (2d Cir.1925), cert. denied, 269 U.S. 554, 46 S.Ct. 18, 70 L.Ed. 408 (1925); In re Harris, 27 F.Supp. 480 (S.D.N.Y.1939). Judge Steel considered these cases inapplicable for two reasons: first, the National Banking Act contains specific statutor......
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. Bank of California
...entity". 12 U.S. C.A. §§ 601-604. Pan-American Bank & Trust Co. v. National City Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 762, 767; In re Harris, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 480. 13 Grants Pass & Josephine Bank v. City of Grants Pass, 145 Or. 624, 28 P.2d 14 Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 128......
-
SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE, ETC. v. McGranery
...is noncompliance with procedures in the court where plaintiff has brought suit. The other cases cited by plaintiff, In re Harris, D.C.N.Y.1939, 27 F.Supp. 480, and Galanos v. United States, D.C.Mass.1939, 27 F.Supp. 298, are not in point. In the Harris case, it was held that under the terms......