State v. Wildes
Decision Date | 26 June 1911 |
Docket Number | 1,972. |
Citation | 116 P. 595,34 Nev. 94 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HOWELL v. WILDES. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of Eugene Howell, as State Bank Examiner, against Frank L. Wildes, as receiver of the State Bank & Trust Company. Application dismissed.
Cleveland H. Baker, Atty. Gen., and James R. Judge, Deputy Atty., for petitioner. Mack, Green, Brown & Heer, for respondent. Van Dyke, Smith & Danforth, Cheney, Downer, Price & Hawkins, and W. A. Massey, amici curiæ.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought by the state, upon the relation of the State Bank Examiner, to compel the respondent, Frank L. Wildes, as receiver of the State Bank & Trust Company, to deliver and surrender to the relator, as State Bank Examiner, the custody, possession, and control of the State Bank & Trust Company Bank, and all other property and accounts of whatever kind and nature which he now has in his custody, possession, or control as such receiver of said the State Bank & Trust Company. The application for the writ is based upon the provisions of section 79 of an act entitled "An act to regulate banking and other matters relating thereto," approved March 22, 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 291) which section reads:
The respondent, Frank L. Wildes, as receiver of the said State Bank & Trust Company, came into possession of the said bank, and all other property thereof, under and by virtue of a judgment and decree of the First judicial district court of the state of Nevada, in and for Ormsby county, made on the 18th day of May, 1908, in an action brought by the state of Nevada, on the relation of the board of state bank commissioners, against the State Bank & Trust Company and the directors thereof, wherein it was adjudged that it was unsafe for the said the State Bank & Trust Company to continue business, and ordered said company into involuntary liquidation, enjoined the directors of said company from transacting any of its business affairs, appointing the respondent receiver of said company, and directing the then Bank Examiner to deliver and surrender to said receiver all the property and effects of said defendant corporation.
The judgment and decree ordering the State Bank & Trust Company into involuntary liquidation and appointing the respondent herein as receiver was made under and by virtue of the provisions of section 10 of an act entitled "An act creating a board of bank commissioners, defining its duties, providing for the appointment of a Bank Examiner, prescribing his duties, fixing his compensation, providing penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act, and other matters relating thereto." Approved March 26, 1907 (St. 1907, c. 119), which section, in part, reads as follows: ***"
That the decree ordering the State Bank & Trust Company into involuntary liquidation and appointing a receiver thereof was a final judgment is conceded in this proceeding. It was treated as a final judgment by the parties to the proceeding, an appeal having been taken to this court by the defendants in the action, upon the theory that the same was a final judgment, and the judgment affirmed. State v. State Bank & Trust Co., 31 Nev. 456, 103 P. 407, 105 P. 567. See, also, Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor, 100 Ill. 478.
The respondent, in his answer, and counsel for respondent, in their brief, have attacked the banking act of 1911 as violative of the Constitution, particularly section 79 thereof. It is unnecessary to consider many of the constitutional questions raised, and it would not be proper to do so, in the event any of the objections made to section 79 can be well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Langever v. Miller
...526; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 19 S. Ct. 134, 43 L. Ed. 382; U. S. v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115, 3 L. Ed. 53; State v. Wildes, 34 Nev. 94, 116 P. 595; Gilman v. Tucker, 128 N. Y. 190, 28 N. E. 1040, 13 L. R. A. 304, 26 Am. St. Rep. 464; Martin v. South Salem Land Co., 94 Va. 28, 26......
-
Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., Corp.
...to extinguish an accrued vested right is prohibited” by the state constitutional remedy guarantee); State ex rel. Howell v. Wildes, 34 Nev. 94, 116 P. 595, 600 (1911) (retroactive alteration of vested rights is “an attempted infringement upon the functions of the judicial branch of governme......
-
Priest v. Whitney Loan & Trust Co.
... ... date of September 1, 1931. Defendant is a banking corporation ... organized under the laws of Iowa governing state and savings ... banks and trust companies. The certificate of deposit in ... question is in the usual form of interest coupon ... certificates, in ... The ... Supreme Court of Nevada in State ex rel. Howell v ... Wildes, 34 Nev. 94, 116 P. 595, 600, said: " The ... Legislature may, within its police power, regulate and ... control banks, and it may be that the ... ...
-
Board of Com'rs of Moore County v. Blue
... ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Moore County; Bryson, Judge ... Action ... by the State, on the relation of Board of Commissioners of ... Moore County, against Daniel Alphonso Blue, Sheriff of Moore ... County and his bondsmen, wherein ... appears in the act itself. Black on Judgments (2d Ed.) par ... 298, 455; Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) 395, 396; State ... v. Wildes, 34 Nev. 94, 116 P. 595; Gilman v ... Tucker, 128 N.Y. 190, 28 N.E. 1040, 13 L. R. A. 304, 26 ... Am. St. Rep. 464; McCulloch v. Virginia, 172 ... ...