Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, No. 10133

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtHALL; HALL, Circuit Judge, sitting for HOMEYER
Citation127 N.W.2d 139,80 S.D. 491
Docket NumberNo. 10133
Decision Date23 March 1964
PartiesLIVESTOCK STATE BANK, Artesian, South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE BANKING COMMISSION of the State of South Dakota and L. A. Pier, Walter K. Johnson, Walter Willy, and Oscar Brosz, Constituting the Members Thereof, Defendants and Respondents.

Page 139

127 N.W.2d 139
80 S.D. 491
LIVESTOCK STATE BANK, Artesian, South Dakota, Plaintiff and
Appellant,
v.
STATE BANKING COMMISSION of the State of South Dakota and L.
A. Pier, Walter K. Johnson, Walter Willy, and
Oscar Brosz, Constituting the Members
Thereof, Defendants and
Respondents.
No. 10133.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
March 23, 1964.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1964.

[80 S.D. 492] Paul O. Kretschmar, Eureka, for plaintiff and appellant.

M. T. Woods, Sioux Falls, amicus curiae.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., Fred Hendrickson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendants and respondents.

Roswell Bottum, Rapid City, amicus curiae.

HALL, Circuit Judge.

On October 26, 1963, plaintiff, a banking corporation organized and chartered under the laws of this state and having its principal place of business at Artesian, South Dakota, filed an application with the Superintendent

Page 140

of Banks of the State of South Dakota under the provisions of SDC 1960 Supp. 6.0402 to establish a branch bank at Java, South Dakota. Said application was denied by the South Dakota Banking Commission for the reason that the town of Java is situated more than fifty miles from the parent bank operated at Artesian, South Dakota, and that establishment of a branch of plaintiff's bank at Java, South Dakota, in accordance with the application would constitute a violation of Rule 17 of the rules and regulations adopted by the South Dakota Banking Commission.

Rule 17, adopted by the South Dakota Banking Commission on May 28, 1945 is as follows:

[80 S.D. 493] 'No such branch office or branch bank shall be established outside of the county or adjoining counties, of the bank's domicile, or more than fifty miles away from such bank.'

The plaintiff thereafter brought this action against the State Banking Commission for a declaratory judgment declaring Rule 17 invalid, void, without force of law and that plaintiff therefore is not required to comply with the terms and provisions thereof. The case was presented to the trial court on a stipulation of facts, and judgment was entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. The appeal from this judgment raises but one issue for determination by this court; that being the validity of Rule 17 and the statutes relied upon by the State Banking Commission as authority for the promulgation and adoption of said rule.

Under subsection (3) of SDC 6.0205, the State Banking Commission is given power '* * * to adopt all necessary rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of this state for the management and administration of banks doing business under the laws of this state'.

The terms 'branch office' and 'branch bank' are defined in SDC 6.0101 as follows:

'(7) 'Branch office', a branch place of business maintained by a bank within the county of its domicile or an adjoining county to receive deposits, issue drafts and cashier's checks, make change, pay checks, and other clerical and routine functions, but not including making loans and discounts;

'(8) 'Branch bank', a branch place of business maintained by a bank for conduct of banking.'

SDC 1960 Supp. 6.0402, 'Branch offices and branch banks authorized', provides in part as follows:

'A branch office or a branch bank may be conducted by a bank only with the permission of the Commission under such rules and regulations as the Commission shall prescribe, and such permission to be in [80 S.D. 494] the sole discretion of the Commission. No branch office shall be operated in any city or town after any state or national bank has received authority to operate in such town or city. Only one branch office shall be established in any town or city.

'Each branch...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co., No. 10662
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 16 Abril 1970
    ...III, Section 1, Constitution of South Dakota; Boe v. Foss, 76 S.D. 295, 77 N.W.2d 1; Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 80 S.D. 491, 127 N.W.2d 139. However, the legislature may not delegate to private persons discretionary power to fix wages, prices or rates. Any attempt to ......
  • Ackerson, Matter of, Nos. 13832
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 22 Junio 1983
    ...statutory authority to provide additional regulations even if such additions are advisable. Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Comm'n, 80 S.D. 491, 127 N.W.2d 139 Standards for certifying law enforcement officers are found in SDCL 23-3-42: Qualifications prescribed for law enforcement of......
  • State of South Dakota v. National Bank of SD, Sioux Falls, No. 17460.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 Agosto 1964
    ...beyond applicable South Dakota statutory standards. The South Dakota Supreme Court in Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 127 N.W.2d 139, decided while this appeal was pending, squarely held that "Rule 17 is invalid as an unwarranted attempt by the State Banking Commissio......
  • Allegheny Corp., Inc. v. Richardson, Inc., No. 17056
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 28 Noviembre 1990
    ...in that opinion by the Secretary of State and the legislature for the past ten years. In Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 80 S.D. 491, 496, 127 N.W.2d 139, 141-42 (1964) this court Respondent argues that the continued existence of Rule 17 since 1945, its approval as a valid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co., No. 10662
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 16 Abril 1970
    ...III, Section 1, Constitution of South Dakota; Boe v. Foss, 76 S.D. 295, 77 N.W.2d 1; Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 80 S.D. 491, 127 N.W.2d 139. However, the legislature may not delegate to private persons discretionary power to fix wages, prices or rates. Any attempt to ......
  • Ackerson, Matter of, Nos. 13832
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 22 Junio 1983
    ...statutory authority to provide additional regulations even if such additions are advisable. Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Comm'n, 80 S.D. 491, 127 N.W.2d 139 Standards for certifying law enforcement officers are found in SDCL 23-3-42: Qualifications prescribed for law enforcement of......
  • State of South Dakota v. National Bank of SD, Sioux Falls, No. 17460.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 Agosto 1964
    ...beyond applicable South Dakota statutory standards. The South Dakota Supreme Court in Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 127 N.W.2d 139, decided while this appeal was pending, squarely held that "Rule 17 is invalid as an unwarranted attempt by the State Banking Commissio......
  • Allegheny Corp., Inc. v. Richardson, Inc., No. 17056
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 28 Noviembre 1990
    ...in that opinion by the Secretary of State and the legislature for the past ten years. In Livestock State Bank v. State Banking Commission, 80 S.D. 491, 496, 127 N.W.2d 139, 141-42 (1964) this court Respondent argues that the continued existence of Rule 17 since 1945, its approval as a valid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT