La Parr v. City of Rockford, Ill.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1938
• Docket Number: No. 6701.,6701.
• Parties: LA PARR et al. v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

100 F.2d 564 (1938)

LA PARR et al. v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILL.

No. 6701.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

December 6, 1938.

Arthur V. Essington and Charles S. Thomas, both of Rockford, Ill., for appellant.

R. P. Lichtenwalner, of Rockford, Ill., for appellee Henry La Parr.

Charles H. Davis, of Rockford, Ill., for appellee Board of Education.

Charles A. Thomas, of Rockford, Ill., for appellees Trustees of Firemen's Pension Fund et al.

C. H. Linscott, of Rockford, Ill., for appellee A. B. Culhane.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Defendant, a municipal corporation of Illinois, appeals from a decree directing it to repay to the receiver of the Manufacturers National Bank and Trust Company, $401,820.49 as principal and $177,261.85 as interest, the principal representing a deposit of $1,030,309.58 to the credit of the city at the time the bank closed under order of the comptroller, less a dividend of 61 per cent, equal to that which had, at the time of the entry of the decree, been paid to other depositors. The court dismissed the suit as to the Board of Education, the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund of the City of Rockford, the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the City of Rockford, the City Treasurer and the City Clerk.

Plaintiff was a depositor in the bank and as such brought this suit on June 14, 1933. He had previously demanded that the receiver bring the suit, that the comptroller require it to be brought and that the bank itself sue. Each demand was refused, and thereupon plaintiff filed the bill in behalf of himself and all other depositors similarly situated.

The bank closed its doors under order of the comptroller as insolvent June 13, 1931. A receiver was appointed and took possession of the assets. Of the moneys of the city then on deposit, one portion represented funds of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, another, funds of the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund, and another, those of the Board of Education. The entire deposit was secured by a pledge agreement entered into May 12, 1931, whereby, in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the latter agreed with the city to receive the deposit and to secure payment of the same by pledging as security assets of the bank sufficient to protect it. Shortly after the bank closed, in pursuance of authorization by the comptroller, the receiver delivered to the city, moneys and securities sufficient to pay the deposit in full. This action was further authorized by an order of court entered upon the receiver's petition.

The District Court found that the city had disbursed the moneys received from the bank prior to December 31, 1931, except that portion which represented funds of the Board of Education; this it had delivered to that Board. It concluded that plaintiff might rightfully bring the suit; that the pledge of securities and the repayment of the funds by the receiver were ultra vires and illegal; that the approval of the action by the court did not bar maintenance of the suit; that the undisturbed retention of the money would amount to a preference by the bank in violation of the acts of Congress; that the city, having illegally and wrongfully received the money, could not exonerate itself from liability by showing that it paid any part thereof to another municipal agency for which it was acting; that the city was liable for the principal, less the dividends paid, plus 5 per cent interest from the date of payment until the entry of the decree; that the bill should be dismissed as to all defendants except the city and intervening petitioner Culhane, the successive receiver of the bank. This receiver had intervened as a defendant, filing an answer to plaintiff's bill and a counterclaim against the city seeking recovery of the money.

Defendant insists that voluntary payment by the receiver, pursuant to instructions of the comptroller, estopped plaintiff and the receiver from recovering the money; that the failure to bring suit or make a demand on defendant for return of the money until more than eighteen months after payment barred a recovery because of laches, in view of the fact that defendant had changed its position by expending all of the money for municipal purposes prior to commencement of suit; that the court should have left the parties where it found them, and refused to set aside a completely executed transaction; that the depositor, under the circumstances existing in this case, should not be allowed to institute and maintain this suit; that defendant should not be held liable for money delivered by it to the Board of Education, the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund and the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund; and that, in any event, the decree should not have allowed interest from the date of payment of the money, June 13, 1931, but only from the date of the decree.

It is apparent that the pledge of assets of the bank to secure the deposit of the City was an ultra vires act, beyond the legal power of the bank. This follows, in view of the fact that this national bank was located in the State of Illinois, from the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Marion et al. v. Sneeden, 291 U.S. 262, 54 S.Ct. 421, 78 L.Ed. 787, affirming the decision of this court in 7 Cir., 64 F.2d 721, holding that banks created under the laws of Illinois do not possess the power of pledging assets to secure the deposit of public money of political subdivisions of the state and that consequently, in view of 12 U.S.C.A. § 90, providing that a national bank may give security for deposits only if the laws of the state wherein it is located authorize banking institutions of the state to do so, a national bank in Illinois has no such power. Following this decision, the Supreme Court of Illinois reached the same conclusion in People v. Wiersema State Bank, 361 Ill. 75, 197 N.E. 537, 101 A.L.R. 501. In Granzow v. Village of Lyons, 7 Cir., 89 F.2d 83, this court, in a similar situation, held that, where a receiver of a national bank, under an erroneous interpretation of the law, had consented to the sale of pledged assets to satisfy the deposit of the village, the act was wrongful and the receiver might recover the amount received by the depositor. Again in O'Connor v. Rhodes, 65 App.D.C. 21, 79 F.2d 146, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 297 U.S. 383, 56 S.Ct. 517, 80 L.Ed. 733, where a depositor of a closed bank filed suit to recover the money paid by the receiver under a void pledge of assets, he was permitted to maintain the suit. See, also, Fidelity & Casualty Company v. Allen, 7 Cir., 84 F.2d 53; Griffin v. Royall, 4 Cir., 70 F.2d 103; People v. Cairo-Alexander County Bank, 363 Ill. 589, 2 N.E.2d 889; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Pottorff, 291 U.S. 245, 54 S.Ct. 416, 78 L.Ed. 777; Inland Waterways Corp. et als. v. Hardee, App.D.C., 100 F.2d 678.

It follows, therefore, that the pledge of the assets was illegal; that the action of the receiver and the comptroller in carrying out the pledge agreement, though in good faith, under an erroneous interpretation of the law, was likewise beyond their legal powers, and that upon the receiver's failure to repudiate the transaction and his refusal to bring suit to rescind the same, plaintiff had a right, in behalf of himself and other depositors, to institute and maintain the action. It is of no moment that the bank and the city, in the original transaction, and the comptroller and the receiver on the one hand and the city on the other, in their transactions, acted in the utmost of good faith. All of the parties assumed that the pledge was valid. Their assumption was incorrect, but that it was erroneous was not authoritatively established by the Supreme Court until after the payment of the deposit to the city. Immaterial, however, is the motive that inspired the parties, for, under the law, the pledge was invalid, and no act of the bank, the receiver or the comptroller could validate it. The comptroller and the receiver are officers of the United States and any mistake upon their part, in violation of their legal powers, even though made in good faith,...