Mallon v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 29 September 1896
• Citation: 76 F. 388
• Parties: MALLON v. HYDE et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington

76 F. 388

MALLON v. HYDE et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Eastern Division.

September 29, 1896

Blake & Post, for plaintiff.

Jones Voorhees & Stephens, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

In support of their motion to remand, the plaintiff's attorneys have argued that the supposed federal question is not now a debatable question,-- the same having been decided and the law settled, by the supreme court of the United States,-- and they have cited the following cases: Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 363, 364; Waite v. Dowley, 94 U.S. 527-534. It is true that the opinion of the supreme court in each of the cases cited lays down general principles which, in my opinion, must control the decision of the federal question in this case. But the supreme court, like any other court, makes its decisions to fit the particular facts of the cases presented; and, when general rules are given, the application thereof to other cases involving different facts may be questions.

Each of the above-mentioned cases is entirely different in its facts from the case now under consideration, and my attention has not been called to any decision of the supreme court wherein this identical question has been adjudicated. The motion to remand will be denied.

The points advanced in support of the demurrer are: First. The constitution does not create a right of action in favor of an individual depositor whose money has been taken in by an insolvent bank, and, until there shall be supplemental legislation providing means to enforce the same, this section of the constitution lies dormant. Second. All depositors similarly situated have equal rights with the plaintiff, and as they are all creditors of the bank, and represented by the receiver, the right of action, if any, exists only in favor of the receiver, for the benefit of all.

It is my opinion that the obvious intent and purpose of the people of this state, as expressed in the section of the constitution under consideration, were to insure honesty in conducting the business of the moneyed institutions of the state, and the greatest possible degree of security to those who should become depositors therein; and to the extent of establishing permanently a rule of individual responsibility for losses resulting from bad faith, or deceit practiced in dealing with customers of a bank, it was intended to not rely upon the legislature to make suitable laws. The section...