Krimke v. Guarantee Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Newark
| Decision Date | 02 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 137.,137. |
| Citation | 170 A. 637 |
| Parties | KRIMKE v. GUARANTEE BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NEWARK et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 258, P. L. 1933 (Comp. St Supp. § 27—R(86) et seq.), an emergency act providing for the appointment of conservators for building and loan associations, and granting certain powers and privileges to such conservators, held not unconstitutional.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.
Suit by Sarah Krimke, administratrix, etc., against the Guarantee Building & Loan Association of the City of Newark, and Julius E. Flink, as conservator, etc. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Schotland & Schotland, of Newark, for appellant.
Charles Hood, of Newark, for respondents.
Plaintiff-appellant, as administratrix cum testamento annexo of the estate of Fanny Feist, deceased, brought suit in the Essex county circuit court to recover four months' rent alleged to be due under a lease between appellant's predecessors, as executors and trustees, with the defendant Guarantee Building & Loan Association. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant Julius E. Flink was appointed conservator of the Guarantee Association by the commissioner of banking and insurance. This appointment was made under the provisions of chapter 258 of the Laws of 1933, p. 694, Comp. St. Supp. § 27—R (86) et seq.
Motion was made to strike the complaint, and the circuit court judge ordered the complaint stricken.
The question raised on this appeal is whether the act above mentioned deprives the appellant of the right to begin suit against the association and conservator. The act recites in a preamble that a public emergency exists. In subdivision (g) of the first section (Comp. St. Supp. § 27—R(86) subd. (g) it is provided that the commissioner of banking and insurance may, "whenever it is essential, in the public interest," appoint a conservator or conservators for a building and loan association, and "such conservators shall have all the rights, powers and privileges now possessed by or hereafter given receivers of corporations * * *" and "during the time that such conservator remains in possession of such association, the rights of all parties with respect thereto shall, subject to the provisions of this subchapter, be the same as if a receiver had been appointed therefor."
The clear purpose of the act was to prevent hard-pressed building and loan associations from being ruined by forced liquidation through one creditor attempting to secure a preference over another creditor by obtaining judgment. It does not suspend the right of the creditor to press for payment of its claim, nor does it prohibit payment of debts, but it does, by providing that the situation shall be the same as in a receivership, prevent the beginning of a suit in which judgment may be obtained, execution issued, and the assets of the association sold in part or whole for such debt.
Appellant urges that, if the statute provides that "creditors could not sue and could not collect what was due to them, it seems obvious that the obligation of their contracts would be impaired," and the statute would, to that extent, be unconstitutional.
The statute, as stated, recited that "a public emergency exists as the result of a prolonged period of economic depression," and in section 5 provides that it shall become inoperative after three years from the date of its approval.
The exercise of the police power in an emergency to protect large numbers of the public from injury by reason of temporary conditions, and for a limited time, has been sustained in many cases. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 41 S. Ct. 458, 65 L. Ed. 865, 16 A. L. R. 165; Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 41 S. Ct. 465, 65 L. Ed. 877; People of State of New York ex rel. Brixton Operating Corp. v. La Fetra, 257 U. S. 665, 42 S. Ct. 47, 66 L. Ed. 424; Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U. S. 242, 42 S. Ct. 280, 66 L. Ed. 595; Chastleten Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U. S. 543, 44 S. Ct. 405, 68 L. Ed. 841; In re Opinion of the Justices, 278 Mass. 607, 181 N. E. 833, 82 A. L. R. 1021; People of State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rocker v. Cardinal Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Newark
...the protection of the savings of the public are enacted under the inherent police power of the state. Krimke v. Guarantee Building & Loan Association, 112 N. J. Law, 317, 170 A. 637; State v. Massillon Savings & Loan Co., 110 Ohio St. 320, 143 N. E. 894; Union Savings & Investment Co. v. Di......
-
State v. Grissom
...110 Ark. 269, 162 S.W. 1090 (1913); Richardson v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App. 389, 32 P.2d 405 (1934); Krimke v. Guarantee Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 112 N.J.L. 317, 170 A. 637 (1934); Jefco, Inc. v. Lewis, 520 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.1975). Savings and loan associations are closely affected with the pub......
-
In re N. Jersey Title Ins. Co.
...section 27 thereof removes all doubts and uncertainties by explaining the reasons for the enactment. Krimke v. Guarantee Building & Loan Association, 112 N.J.Law, 317, 170 A. 637; Hourigan v. Township of North Bergen, supra; Board of Milk Control v. Newark Milk Company, 118 N.J.Eq. 504, 179......
-
Kipp v. Fid. Title & Mortgage Guar. Co.
...as a valid exercise of the police power to promote the general welfare and especially to protect creditors. Krimke v. Guarantee B. & L. Ass'n, 112 N. J. Law, 317, 170 A. 637; Home B. & L. Aas'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 54 S. Ct. 231, 240, 78 L. Ed. 413, 88 A. L. R. 1481; People v. Title......