Prince v. Franklin Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 10 February 1970 |
| Parties | Jayne PRINCE and J.P.J. Contractors, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant's motion to change the place of trial of this action from Queens County to Nassau County is granted. Plaintiffs' request that defendant's motion be denied or alternatively that the motion be adjourned until after an examination before trial is had is denied.
This action is for the alleged conversion by defendant bank of stocks owned by plaintiffs (residents of Queens County) and held to secure a loan made to C. John Prince.
Title 12, Section 94, United States Code grants to national banking associations the privilege of having the venue of any action brought against it located 'in any State * * * court in the county * * * in which said association is located * * *.' It is uncontroverted that defendant Franklin National Bank is 'located' in Nassau County. Furthermore, the mere presence of branch offices in Queens County does not locate defendant bank in that county for venue purposes (Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 81 F.2d 19, Cir. 1936, cert. denied 298 U.S. 677, 56 S.Ct. 941, 80 L.Ed. 1398). 'The provisions of the Federal statute are mandatory upon the state courts' (Stephen-Leedom Carpet Co. v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas, 25 A.D.2d 645, 268 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1st Dept. 1966).
There is no doubt that all of plaintiffs' contacts with defendant bank regarding the loan took place in Nassau County. Plaintiffs contend, however, that if custody and sale of the stocks by defendant occurred in Queens County then defendant would have waived its statutory privilege. Assuming this contention to be true, no waiver is found. For a waiver to exist, defendants' conduct must be so indicative of an intent to relinquish the statutory privilege that all other reasonable explanations of its conduct are negated (Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 192 F.2d 58, 7th Cir. 1951, cert. denied 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 558, 96 L.Ed. 702). Defendants' conduct does not evidence such intent.
Accordingly no further hearing as ordered in Schaefer Sons Inc. v. Watson d/b/a Noral Company and Franklin National Bank, 26 A.D.2d 659, 272 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2d Dept. 1966, is required and defendant's motion to change...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens and Southern National Bank v. Bougas
...612, 614 (1969); Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson, 26 A.D.2d 659, 272 N.Y.S.2d 790, 791 (1966); Prince v. Franklin Nat. Bank, 62 Misc.2d 855, 310 N.Y.S.2d 390, 391 (Sup.Ct.1970). See 7A Michie, Banks and Banking, ch. 15, § 220b (1973 ed.).6 2. In contrast, other decisions hold that "......
-
Central Bank v. Superior Court
...271 F.Supp. 699; Internat. Refugee Organization v. Bank of America (D.C.N.Y.1949) 86 F.Supp. 884; Prince v. Franklin Nat. Bank (1970), 62 Misc.2d 855, 310 N.Y.S.2d 390.6 People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 80, 86, 81 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d 129; Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. San Diego County (1960) ......
-
United States National Bank v. Hill
...699, 703 (S.D.N.Y.1966); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lippert Bros., Inc., 233 F.Supp. 650, 653 (D.Neb.1964); Prince v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 310 N.Y.S.2d 390 (1970); Ebeling v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 272 Cal.App.2d 724, 727, 77 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614 (1969); Tuthill v. ......
-
Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas
...Western Sugar Co., 3 Cir., 274 F.Supp. 974; Odette v. Shearson, Hammill and Co., Inc., D.C., 394 F.Supp. 946; Prince v. Franklin National Bank, 62 Misc.2d 855, 310 N.Y.S.2d 390; Schaefer Sons, Inc. v. Watson, 26 A.D.2d 659, 272 N.Y.S.2d The original National Banking Act of 1863 did not make......