Love v. Sunflower County

• Decision Date: 12 December 1932
• Docket Number: 30267
• Citation: 165 Miss. 507,144 So. 856
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, et al. v. SUNFLOWER COUNTY

144 So. 856

165 Miss. 507

LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, et al. v. SUNFLOWER COUNTY

No. 30267

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 12, 1932

Division A

1. BANKS AND BANKING.

Statute respecting bank liquidation proceedings vests full jurisdiction of subject-matter in chancery court (Code 1930 section 3817).

2. BANKS AND BANKING.

In bank liquidation proceeding, all equities, liens, and priorities are to be settled by decree of chancery court (Code 1930 section 3817).

3. BANKS AND BANKING.

Where insolvent bank was being liquidated, county and city could not maintain separate bill in equity and have subjected specific property of bank to their demand (Code 1930, section 3817).

HON. J L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Sunflower county, HON. J. L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

Suit by Sunflower county against J. S. Love, Superintendent of Banks, C. C. Moore, Liquidating Agent of Bank of Indianola, and others, in which the City of Indianola intervened. From the decree, defendants appeal. Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Reversed.

Cooper & Thomas, of Indianola, and Flowers, Brown & Hester, of Jackson, for appellants.

Under Section 3817 of the Code of 1930, after a bank is placed in liquidation the Superintendent of Banks has complete authority over the assets, subject only to the approval of the chancery court under whose jurisdiction the bank is being liquidated, and the Superintendent of Banks is responsible for the proper handling of the assets of the failed bank. The decrees in these cases are arbitrary because they deprive the Superintendent of Banks of the right to liquidate these banks in accordance with the banking laws, for the best interest of all depositors and creditors.

All the affairs of the bank were in course of liquidation under the supervision of the Chancery Court of Sunflower county, and in due course of administration the rights of the public depositor would be protected, and there was no occasion for this suit to be filed, because the rights of the public depositor would have been fully protected.

Sunflower County v. Bank of Drew, 135 Miss. 191, 101 So. 192.

Neil & Clark, Frank E. Everett, and Moody & Johnson, all of Indianola, for appellee.

It is expressly provided that after the bank is closed for liquidation "the superintendent of banks shall thereafter have full and complete control and authority over the assets and affairs of the failed bank, subject only to the order of the chancery court to which jurisdiction of the liquidation has been submitted.

The chancery court of the chancellor, in vacation, shall have full jurisdiction to make any and all orders in the course of the liquidation proceedings.

It is not conceivable that the "full and complete control and authority over the assets and affairs of the failed bank" was intended to limit the jurisdiction of the chancery court in the protection of the rights of creditors, whether entitled to priority of payment or not, and vest the protection of the rights of creditors in the superintendent of banks. To so construe the statute would divest those creditors of their right, by depriving them of their property without due process of law, as well as denying to them access to the courts in the enforcement of their rights and leave them, in the enforcement of their rights to the judgment or lack of judgment of the superintendent of banks and liquidating agents appointed by him.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

J. S. Love, superintendent of banks, and C. C. Moore, liquidating agent of the Bank of Indianola, appeal to this court from an adverse decree rendered against them as representatives of the Bank of Indianola, Mississippi.

The appellee, Sunflower County, filed its bill in equity against appellants and a number of sureties on the depository bond in the county's favor, executed by the bank and the named sureties. The sureties paid their obligation in full; hence there is no decree against them.

In short, the county alleged that on December 16, 1931, the Bank of Indianola closed its doors and suspended business, and that Love, as superintendent of banks, and Moore, as liquidating agent, were duly placed in charge of said defunct bank as shown by proceedings in that behalf on file in the chancery court of that county.

It was alleged that said bank qualified as its county depository for the year beginning January 5, 1931, and executed surety bonds signed by several surety bond companies, conditioned that the depository would discharge the duties required by law, and that these surety bonds had been breached.

It was further charged that there was deposited in the bank, as county depository, twenty thousand dollars of the bonds of the Gravel bayou district of Sunflower county, Mississippi, as further and additional indemnity to the county for the faithful discharge of its duties as such depository.

It was also alleged that the county had funds on deposit in said bank, on closing its doors finally, largely in excess of the total amount of surety bonds added to the district bonds deposited as security for its public fund deposits, and that all the assets of said bank were liable to be subjected to the payments of its prior claim for deposit of its public funds in the said bank not secured by the indemnity set forth, including a statutory penalty and attorney's fees.

Certain real estate was described, including the banking house, and a lien was asserted in the county's favor as against said real estate for the payment of the excess of...