Noble State Bank v. Haskell

Decision Date03 January 1911
Docket NumberNo. 71,71
Citation55 L.Ed. 112,31 S.Ct. 186,219 U.S. 104
PartiesNOBLE STATE BANK, Plff. in Err., v. C. N. HASKELL, G. W. Bellamy, J. P. Connors, J. A. Menefee, M. E. Trapp, and H. H. Smock
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. C. B. Ames, J. B. Dudley, D. T. Flynn, and T. G. Chambers for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 105-107 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Charles West, E. G. Spilman, and W. C. Reeves for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 107-109 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a proceeding against the governor of the state of Oklahoma and other officials who constitute the state banking board, to prevent them from levying and collecting an assessment from the plaintiff under an act approved December 17, 1907. This act creates the board, and directs it to levy upon every bank existing under the laws of the state an assessment of 1 per cent of the bank's average daily deposits, with certain deductions, for the purpose of creating a depositors' guaranty fund. There are provisos for keeping up the fund, and by an act passed March 11, 1909, since the suit was begun, the assessment is to be 5 per cent. The purpose of the fund is shown by its name. It is to secure the full repayment of deposits. When a bank becomes insolvent and goes into the hands of the bank commissioner, if its cash immediately available is not enough to pay depositors in full, the banking board is to draw from the depositors' guaranty fund (and from additional assessments if required) the amount needed to make up the deficiency. A lien is reserved upon the assets of the failing bank to make good the sum thus taken from the fund. The plaintiff says that it is solvent and does not want the help of the guaranty fund, and that it cannot be called upon to contribute toward securing or paying the depositors in other banks, consistently with article 1, § 10, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The petition was dismissed on demurrer by the supreme court of the state. 22 Okla. 48, 97 Pac. 590.

The reference to article 1, § 10, does not strengthen the plaintiff's bill. The only contract that it relies upon is its charter. That is subject to alteration or repeal, as usual, so that the obligation hardly could be said to be impaired by the act of 1907 before us, unless that statute deprives the plaintiff of liberty or property without due process of law. See Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black, 587, 17 L. ed. 163. Whether it does so or not is the only question in the case.

In answering that question, we must be cautious about pressing the broad words of the 14th Amendment to a drily logical extreme. Many laws which it would be vain to ask the court to overthrow could be shown, easily enough, to transgress a scholastic interpretation of one or another of the great guaranties in the Bill of Rights. They more or less limit the liberty of the individual, or they diminish property to a certain extent. We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power.

The substance of the plaintiff's argument is that the assessment takes private property for private use without compensation. And while we should assume that the plaintiff would retain a reversionary interest in its contribution to the fund, so as to be entitled to a return of what remained of it if the purpose were given up (see Danby Bank v. State Treasurer, 39 Vt. 92, 98), still there is no denying that by this law a portion of its property might be taken without return to pay debts of a failing rival in business. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the logical form of the objection, there are more powerful considerations on the other side. In the first place, it is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what, in its immediate purpose, is a private use. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 531, 50 L. ed. 581, 583, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1174; Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 203 U. S. 372, 51 L. ed. 231, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 315, 51 L. ed. 499, 501, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289. And in the next, it would seem that there may be other cases beside the everyday one of taxation, in which the share of each party in the benefit of a scheme of mutual protection is sufficient compensation for the correlative burden that it is compelled to assume. See Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S. 190, 44 L. ed. 729, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 576, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 576. At least, if we have a case within the reasonable exercise of the police power as above explained, no more need be said.

It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 42 L. ed. 260, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 864. It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare. Among matters of that sort probably few would doubt that both usage and preponderant opinion give their sanction to enforcing the primary conditions of successful commerce. One of those conditions at the present time is the possibility of payment by checks drawn against bank deposits, to such an extent do checks replace currency in daily business. If, then, the legislature of the state thinks that the public welfare requires the measure under consideration, analogy and principle are in favor of the power to enact it. Even the primary object of the required assessment is not a private benefit, as it was in the cases above cited of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
529 cases
  • Colgate v. Harvey
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1934
    ...of this limitation must not be pressed too far. As Mr. Justice Holmes says in Noble State Bank v. Haskell et al., 219 U. S. 104, 31 S. Ct. 186, 187, 55 L. Ed. 112, 116, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487, "Many laws which it would be vain to ask the court to overthrow could be s......
  • In re Application of Crane
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1915
    ... ... the police power of the state ... 2. The ... object of the title of an act is to give a ... subservient to public needs and demands. ( Noble State ... Bank v. Haskell 219 U.S. 104, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487, 31 ... ...
  • Dorsey v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1940
    ... ... 385 ... Guardian, ... surety, and Leake County Bank liable for diversion of funds, ... see: In re Guardianship of Horne, ... being the same bank that caused this state of affairs, and ... procured the signature of the guardian on the ... affected by a public use. See Noble State Bank v ... Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 31 S.Ct. 186, 55 L.Ed. 112, 32 ... ...
  • Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1965
    ...Blackstone Commentaries 162. 'Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States in Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 111, 31 S.Ct. 186, 188, 55 L.Ed. 112, "It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Taken by the Fifth: The Fifth Amendment 'Taking Clause' and Intellectual Property
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 4, 2004
    ...power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power, and do not delimit it. See Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 111. . . * * * Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. F......
4 books & journal articles
  • Singling Out Single-Family Zoning
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-4, April 2023
    • April 1, 2023 regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals or the public safety.”); see also Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 111 (1911) (“It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.”), amended by 219 U.S. 575 (1911). S......
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...can only apply to property, not to personal contracts. The distinction, we think, has no basis in principle (Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104 (1911)), nor has the other contention that the service which cannot be demanded cannot be regulated. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876), i......
  • "home Rule" vs. "dillon's Rule" for Washington Cities
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 38-03, March 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...was able to declare for the Court in 1915 that "the police power extends to all the great public needs." Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 111 (1915). See also Day-Brite v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 424 (1952) ("[T]he police power is not confined to a narrow category."). On the influ......
  • A New Method of Constitutional Amendment By Popular Vote
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 43-1, September 1912
    • September 1, 1912
    ...make him sympathize with modem socialand industrial legislation. The education and experience of different2 Noble State Bank us. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 315judges vary, and therefore, no lawyer pretends to be able to recon-cile all the decisions under the police power of the different court......

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