Jackson v. Valley Nat. Bank of Eagan Tp.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 40161,40161
• Citation: 277 Minn. 293,152 N.W.2d 472
• Parties: In re Application of William JACKSON, et al. for certificate authorizing Burnsville State Bank to transact business in that name in Burnsville, Relators, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP, Respondent, Savage State Bank, First State Bank of Rosemount and First National Bank of Lakeville, objectors, Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 472

152 N.W.2d 472

277 Minn. 293

In re Application of William JACKSON, et al. for certificate

authorizing Burnsville State Bank to transact

business in that name in Burnsville, Relators, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP, Respondent, Savage

State Bank, First State Bank of Rosemount and

First National Bank of Lakeville,

objectors, Respondents.

No. 40161.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 28, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

The State Commerce Commission's denial pursuant to Minn.St. 45.07 of a proposed bank's application for a certificate to conduct business will not be reversed by this court where there is substantial evidence to support its finding that the applicants failed to establish as of the time of hearing a reasonable public demand for the proposed bank.

Thuet & Todd, So. St. Paul, for relators.

Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Wolff & Leach, Sherman Winthrop, J. A. Jensen, and Steven J. Olson, St. Paul, for Valley Nat. Bank of Eagan Tp.

Daniel John O'Connell, St. Paul, for Savage State Bank.

OPINION

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Relators submitted an application to the State Commerce Commission requesting a certificate authorizing the proposed Burnsville State Bank to transact business in the village of Burnsville. Several banks in the area where the proposed bank would be located opposed the issuance of this certificate. After a full hearing extending over a period of 5 days, the application was denied upon a finding that the applicants, as required by Minn.St. 45.07, 'failed to establish that there is a reasonable public demand for the proposed bank.' ¹

The sole issue upon this certiorari review is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the commission's conclusionary finding of fact that at the time of the hearing there was no reasonable public demand for the proposed bank. Under the rules governing the scope of review of fact issues, the weight to be given the facts and circumstances, as well as the inferences to be drawn from them, is for the commission. Since the finding turns largely on an assessment of the relative credibility of witnesses whose testimonial demeanor was observed only by the commission, we do not substitute our judgment on whether the conclusion drawn is the right one or whether a different conclusion would be better supported. We may reverse the commission's finding only if no reasonable person could make such finding in response to the evidence presented. ²

This court has repeatedly endorsed an early statement as to what is comprehended by the words 'reasonable public demand.' In State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities Comm., 145 Minn. 221, 224, 176 N.W. 759, 760, it was stated:

'It is difficult to give to the words 'reasonable public demand' a clearer meaning than they carry without definition. They do not necessarily imply a public outcry or agitation for additional banking facilities. They do not necessarily negative the existence of adequate banking accommodations. They suppose upon the part of the community a desire of a character so substantial as to make the bank welcome and insure an amount of business sufficient to promise it success. The demand may come from the natural desire of the community and upon its own initiative, or it may be the result of propaganda.'

In State ex rel. Duluth Clearing House Assn. v. Dept. of Commerce, 245 Minn. 529, 533, 73 N.W.2d 790, 794, it was emphasized:

'* * * We believe that the term used by the legislature must be given a meaning that makes it possible to carry out the manifest object of the statute. The requirements of the statute are intended for the protection of the public.'

Thus, in determining whether a 'reasonable public demand' is established in any case, it is required that these words be given a meaning which will promote the legitimate interest of the community as a whole in having a sound banking structure, reasonably competitive and fully adequate for the needs of the community. In making this determination, the following factors are among those that should be considered: (1) Number of banks already serving the area ³ in which the proposed bank would locate; (2) size of area; (3) population of area; (4) wealth of residents of area; (5) commercial and industrial development of area; (6) potential growth of area; (7) adequacy of the services being provided by existing banks compared to the needs of residents and the services to be offered by proposed bank; (8) capability of existing banks to handle potential growth of the area; (9) convenience of the location of existing banks to residents of the area as compared to convenience of the proposed bank; (10) size of banks in area; (11) dates when the banks in the area were established; and (12) the number of persons in area who desire to use the proposed bank and the amount of business they would generate. ⁴

As of the time the hearings concluded on May 21, 1965, the commission could reasonably have found the following facts: ⁵ The proposed bank would be a small one located southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway No. 35W and Minnesota Highway No. 13 in the village of Burnsville, a remote suburb of the Twin Cities. Burnsville is economically a part of a larger area which includes the adjoining municipalities and has distinct ties with the Twin Cities. This area was formerly farmland and is presently sparsely populated. Existing population is generally scattered sporadically throughout the area in small concentrations of residences surrounded by large areas of farmland.

...