Snohomish County v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 10 May 1897
• Citation: 81 F. 518
• Parties: SNOHOMISH COUNTY v. PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK OF EVERETT et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division

81 F. 518

SNOHOMISH COUNTY v. PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK OF EVERETT et al.

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

May 10, 1897

L. K Church, for complainant.

C. E Shepard and H. D. Cooley, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

Owing to pressure of many duties, it is not practicable for me at this time, in ruling upon the motion to dismiss and the demurrers to the bill of complaint, to do more than give a general outline of my views upon the questions which were argued.

In entering upon the first inquiry as to jurisdiction, we are met by the questions whether the case is removable, and whether it has been removed from the superior court of Snohomish county, so as to invest this court with jurisdiction. The superior court made an order denying, on legal grounds, the petition to remove the case to this court but I do not agree with counsel for the plaintiff in his contention that there is any such difference between cases in which the removability of a cause depends upon the determination of questions of fact and those in which only questions of law arising upon the facts shown by the record are to be considered, that a decision by a state court of questions of law affecting the right of removal is more conclusive than it would be if the court had assumed to determine questions of fact. In both classes of cases the parties have the right to take the judgment of the United States circuit court as to its own jurisdiction and in every such case the presentation of a petition for removal and bond to the court of original jurisdiction, and the subsequent filing of the transcript of the record in the circuit court, operates to remove the cause, and devest the state court of its jurisdiction completely, without any order granting the petition, if in fact the cause is removable under the laws of congress, and the proceedings are taken in time.

I find by the complainant's statement of its case in the bill of complaint that the case is one of which this court might have taken original jurisdiction as a suit of a civil nature, arising under the laws of the United States. It appears to me to be a suit against an agent of the shareholders of a national bank, elected in a manner provided for by an act of congress, and authorized by the same act to take from a receiver the entire assets of the bank remaining undisposed of, for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the banking association, and, to that end, empowered by the same law to prosecute and defend actions, and also required to render a final account of receipts and disbursements with vouchers, to the United States circuit or district court, for the district in which the bank was located. The object and purpose of the suit are to restrain this agent from proceeding to dispose of the property in his hands, held in his trust capacity, and from settling and compromising liabilities of certain debtors of the bank, and to take the whole of the remaining assets of the bank out of his hands, so that the complainant may realize therefrom a sum of money for which it has a claim against the bank. The bill calls for a recovery, and for an accounting by the agent, and for the appointment of a receiver to take the remaining assets into his custody, to the end that the court having jurisdiction of the cause may have complete control of the assets, and power to dispose of the same, and distribute the proceeds. For all practical purposes, this is a suit to wind up the affairs of an insolvent national bank, and jurisdiction of such cases is conferred upon this court by the laws of the United States defining the jurisdiction of circuit courts.

The motion to dismiss is upon the ground that the superior court of Snohomish county, in which the suit was originally brought, did not have jurisdiction. It is my opinion however, that said court, being a court of superior and general jurisdiction in common law and equity causes, was a court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of the issues tendered by the averments of the bill. As a court of equity having...