Lovett v. Lankford
Decision Date | 29 September 1914 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 6059 |
Citation | 1914 OK 458,47 Okla. 12,145 P. 767 |
Parties | LOVETT et al., Creek County Com'rs, v. LANKFORD et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. STATES--Banks and Banking-- "Suit Against the State"--Right to Maintain. Plaintiffs in error presented their claim to the bank commissioner and the banking board, demanding payment out of the depositors' guaranty fund. Payment was denied, upon the ground that such deposit was not protected by said fund. Thereupon petition for writ of mandamus was filed in the district court of Oklahoma county. Alternative writ was issued, which, on final hearing, was discharged, and error is prosecuted to this court. Held, that the bank commissioner and the banking board are a part of the executive branch of the state government, and a suit in mandamus, seeking to compel said officers in their official capacity to allow and pay said claim out of the depositors' guaranty fund, is a suit in effect against the state, and cannot be maintained without the consent of the state.
2. MANDAMUS--Official Acts--Exercise of Discretion--Banks and Banking. The bank commissioner and the banking board constitute a part of the executive branch of the state government, and the duties devolving upon said officials require the exercise of judgment and discretion. Held, in the absence of allegation and proof of fraud, or arbitrary action, their decision in a matter within their jurisdiction will not be reviewed or controlled by a writ of mandamus.
3. BANKS AND BANKING--Guaranty Fund-- County Deposits. The facts in this case examined, and held to bring the case within the rule announced by this court in the case of Columbia Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 33 Okla. 535, 126 P. 556.
4. SAME--"General Deposit." Deposits of a county, made pursuant to Rev. Laws 1910, section 1540, providing for ample security and directing them to be made under strict legislative safeguards, do not come within the meaning of a "general deposit," protected by the depositors' guaranty fund, created pursuant to section 298 et seq.
V. S. Decker, Co. Atty., Dale & Bierer, Wm. T. Hutchings, and Ledbetter, Stuart & Bell, for plaintiffs in error
Charles West, Atty. Gen., and Jos. L. Hull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error
¶1 This proceeding in error is prosecuted from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs, as commissioners of Creek county, filed their petition in the district court against the State Banking Board and the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Sapulpa, praying for a writ of mandamus. Defendants filed their answer to the alternative writ of mandamus, and upon the issues thus made the court rendered judgment in favor of defendants, discharging the alternative writ. It is alleged in the petition that the county treasurer of Creek county, on the 10th day of September, 1912, had on deposit in the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank the sum of $ 106,258.26, $ 77,435.01 being deposited to the credit of the treasurer of Creek county, and $ 28,823.25 deposited in the name of the treasurer, as a special deposit; that said bank was at the time subject to the provisions of the bank guaranty law of the state of Oklahoma; that said bank failed on the 10th day of September, 1912, while said funds of said county were on deposit; that defendant Lankford, as State Bank Commissioner, took charge of said bank and its assets; that plaintiffs demanded payment of said deposit from said banking board out of the depositors' guaranty fund, and that, in the event there was not sufficient funds to pay same, the board issue a certificate of indebtedness covering same; that the banking board refused to pay same, or to issue a certificate of indebtedness. They prayed for a peremptory writ of mandamus, requiring said board to pay the amount of said deposit, or to issue a certificate of indebtedness for same. An alternative writ of mandamus was allowed, setting out the foregoing state of facts. Defendants (1) deny the jurisdiction of the court, and (2) aver that the alternative writ did not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to the relief prayed. The second ground in the answer was sustained by the court, and judgment rendered, discharging said alternative writ. Plaintiffs in error allege: First, that the court erred in refusing the peremptory writ of mandamus; second, in overruling motion for a new trial. Several other errors are alleged, but they all relate to one proposition. The questions presented for our determination are: (1) Is this suit, in effect, a suit against the state? (2) If such deposit was protected by the depositors' guaranty fund, is a writ of mandamus a proper remedy to secure the relief sought by plaintiffs? (3) Was the deposit in the name of the treasurer of Creek county in the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Sapulpa at the time it failed protected by the depositors' guaranty fund? It is contended by counsel for plaintiffs that the last two questions must be answered in the affirmative, and the first in the negative; while counsel for defendants in error contend that the first must be answered in the affirmative, and the last two in the negative. Counsel for the respective parties have filed elaborate and able briefs in support of their contentions. These questions require the construction of the section of the statute relating to the deposits protected by the depositors' guaranty fund, and the authority conferred upon the banking board, and the character of duties required to be performed by them. The first question is: Is this suit, in effect, a suit against the state? If this question may be answered in the affirmative, it will be conceded, we presume, that it cannot be maintained without the consent of the state. If defendants in error may be considered executive officers of the state, and in performing their duties in administering the law under consideration do so as such officers, and the property intrusted to their control and management by the law is property owned by the state, or property in which the state has a substantial interest, then it can hardly be questioned that this suit, in effect, is against the state. It was said by this court, in the case of State ex rel. v. Cockrell, 27 Okla. 630, 112 P. 1000:
¶2 In addition to the act of the Legislature creating the banking board and prescribing its duties, it is specifically provided that the state shall have a first lien upon all the assets of the bank, including liability of the individual stockholders. In the case of Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 11 S. Ct. 699, 35 L. Ed. 363, the court states the rule as follows:
" * * * See Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711, 2 S. Ct. 128, 27 L. Ed. 448; Miller v. Raum, 135 U.S. 200, 10 S. Ct. 820, 34 L. Ed. 105; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 20 S. Ct. 919, 44 L. Ed. 1140; 36 Cyc. 915.
¶3 It cannot be questioned that a judgment in this case in favor of plaintiffs in error would directly affect the state, and would, in effect, be a judgment against the state, and would require the subjection of state funds to satisfy said judgment. Therefore it cannot be maintained. That this is a sound and just doctrine is clearly to be seen. If plaintiffs in this case can control the action of the bank commissioner and banking board...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Hwy. Comm'n v. Green-Boots Const. Co.
...cannot be maintained without the consent of the state. Love v. Filtsch, 33 Okla. 131, 124 P. 30, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 212; Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12, 145 P. 767; State Banking Board v. Oklahoma Bankers Trust Co., 49 Okla. 72, 151 P. 566; National Surety Co. v. State Banking Board, 49 Okla......
-
State ex rel. Strain v. Wells
...fund, is a suit in effect against the state, and cannot be maintained without the consent of the state." Lovett et al., Creek Co. Com'rs, v. Lankford et al., 47 Okla. 12, 145 P. 767. "A suit against the state bank commissioner to compel him to pay a debt against a failed bank out of the sta......
-
Antrim Lumber Co. v. Sneed
...¶8 The rule and doctrine thus announced has been followed in a number of subsequent decisions of this court, notably in Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12, 145 P. 767; Lankford v. Schroeder, 47 Okla. 279, 147 P. 1049, L. R. A. 1915F, 623, and State Banking Board v. Oklahoma Bankers Trust Co., ......
-
Richison v. State ex rel. Barnett, Case Number: 24339
...the same effect see the following cases: White v. State, 94 Okla. 7, 220 P. 624; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277, 188 P. 96; Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12, 145 P. 767; State v. Cockrell, 27 Okla. 630, 112 P. 1000. It is argued by defendant that these cases are not applicable for the reason t......