Opinion of the Justices, No. 4751

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation151 A.2d 236,102 N.H. 106
Docket NumberNo. 4751
Decision Date21 May 1959
PartiesOPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

Page 236

151 A.2d 236
102 N.H. 106
OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
No. 4751.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
May 21, 1959.

Page 237

[102 N.H. 111] Sullivan & Gregg and Sherman D. Horton, Jr., Nashua, for New Hampshire Bank Shares, Inc. in favor of affirmative answers.

Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden, Concord, for New Hampshire Bankers Association in favor of negative answers.

Upton, Sanders & Upton, Concord, for New Hampshire Association of Savings Banks, also for negative answers.

PER CURIAM.

[102 N.H. 106] The following resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on April 29, 1959, was filed in this Court on the same date:

'Whereas, House Bill No. 272, An act relating to bank holding companies is now pending in the House of Representatives,

'Whereas, questions have been raised concerning the constitutionality of the provisions of said bill, now therefore

'Resolved, that the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion on the following questions of law:

'1. Do the provisions of House Bill No. 272, An Act relating to bank holding companies violate the Constitution of The State of New Hampshire, the Constitution of the United States or any federal statutes relative to bank holding companies?

[102 N.H. 107] '2. Would a regulatory bill providing for the approval or disapproval by a bank holding company commission of the acquisition of the stock of a bank by a bank holding company conflict with or violate the Constitution of the state or the Constitution of the United States or any federal statute?

'3. Would a bill limiting the total deposits or resources, expressed in terms of percentage of total bank deposits or resources in the state, which a bank holding company could acquire through acquisition of stock of other banks conflict with or violate the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States or any federal statute?'

The following answers were returned:

To the House of Representatives.

The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Court make the following answers to the inquiries contained in your resolution with reference to House Bill No. 272, entitled 'An Act relating to bank holding companies.'

The bill would amend the Revised Statutes Annotated by inserting a new chapter

Page 238

294-A. It includes in its definition of a 'Bank', state and national banks authorized to do business and located in this state. S. 1 I. It defines a 'Company' as 'any bank, corporation, partnership, business trust, voting trust, unincorporated association, joint stock association or similar organization organized under the laws of this state or doing business in this state.' S. 1 II. A 'Bank holding company' is 'any company which directly or indirectly (1) owns, controls, or holds with power to vote fifteen percentum or more of the voting stock of each of two or more banks; or (2) controls the election of a majority of the directors of any two banks.' S. 1 III.

Section 2 thereof provides that 'No company shall become a bank holding company' but this prohibition shall not apply in certain specified cases. S. 3. 'Any company which on the effective date of this act is a bank holding company shall not be required to divest itself of the voting stock of a bank held on said date and such company may acquire additional stock in any bank in which on said date it owns more than fifty per centum of the voting stock.' S. 4.

Section 5 provides that 'No bank holding company shall directly or indirectly (1) acquire ownership or control of any voting [102 N.H. 108] stock in any other bank if after such acquisition it would directly or indirectly own or control more than five per centum of the voting stock thereof except as permitted under section 4; (2) acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank; or (3) merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company.'

Your first inquiry is whether the provisions of House Bill No. 272 violate the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, the Constitution of the United States or any federal statutes relative to bank holding companies.

The business of banking bears such a relation to the economic security of the public that it is a proper subject of regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Opinion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • La Caisse Populaire Ste-Marie (St. Mary's Bank) v. US, Civ. A. No. 75-383.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • December 10, 1976
    ...128, 31 S.Ct. 190, 55 L.Ed. 128 (1911); Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 31 S.Ct. 186, 55 L.Ed. 112 (1911); Opinion of Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 151 A.2d 236 (1959). Other cases which have upheld the Federal Government's constitutional authority to charter financial institutions inc......
  • Security Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp., Inc., No. 14938
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 5, 1981
    ...Corp. v. Smith, 15 Ill.2d 55, 153 N.E.2d 806, app. dismissed, 359 U.S. 311, 79 S.Ct. 876, 3 L.Ed.2d 831 (1959); Opinion of Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 151 A.2d 236 (1959); Scott, The Patchwork Quilt: State and Federal Roles in Bank Regulation, 32 Stan.L.Rev. 687, 690-95 When Bancorp purchased t......
  • New Hampshire Bankers Association v. Nelson, Civ. A. No. 3355.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • January 19, 1972
    ...by the legislature. The wisdom or desirability of a particular regulation is the concern of the legislature. Opinion of the Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 108, 151 A.2d 236 (1959). The New Hampshire legislative history as to this particular banking statute is sparse, but The first statute in this ......
  • Opinion of the Justices, No. 7848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • October 13, 1977
    ...directed to furthering the public interest or general welfare is constitutional unless it is wholly irrational. Opinion of the Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 108, 151 A.2d 236, 238 (1959); see Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729-31, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963). The proposed law would sat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • La Caisse Populaire Ste-Marie (St. Mary's Bank) v. US, Civ. A. No. 75-383.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • December 10, 1976
    ...128, 31 S.Ct. 190, 55 L.Ed. 128 (1911); Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 31 S.Ct. 186, 55 L.Ed. 112 (1911); Opinion of Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 151 A.2d 236 (1959). Other cases which have upheld the Federal Government's constitutional authority to charter financial institutions inc......
  • Security Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp., Inc., No. 14938
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 5, 1981
    ...Corp. v. Smith, 15 Ill.2d 55, 153 N.E.2d 806, app. dismissed, 359 U.S. 311, 79 S.Ct. 876, 3 L.Ed.2d 831 (1959); Opinion of Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 151 A.2d 236 (1959); Scott, The Patchwork Quilt: State and Federal Roles in Bank Regulation, 32 Stan.L.Rev. 687, 690-95 When Bancorp purchased t......
  • New Hampshire Bankers Association v. Nelson, Civ. A. No. 3355.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • January 19, 1972
    ...by the legislature. The wisdom or desirability of a particular regulation is the concern of the legislature. Opinion of the Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 108, 151 A.2d 236 (1959). The New Hampshire legislative history as to this particular banking statute is sparse, but The first statute in this ......
  • Opinion of the Justices, No. 7848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • October 13, 1977
    ...directed to furthering the public interest or general welfare is constitutional unless it is wholly irrational. Opinion of the Justices, 102 N.H. 106, 108, 151 A.2d 236, 238 (1959); see Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729-31, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963). The proposed law would sat......
  • 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