Third Nat. Bank v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 22 September 1881
• Citation: 8 F. 721
• Parties: THIRD NAT. BANK OF ST. LOUIS v. HARRISON and another.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

8 F. 721

THIRD NAT. BANK OF ST. LOUIS v. HARRISON and another.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

September 22, 1881

Dyer &amp Ellis, for plaintiff.

Alexander Graves, for defendant.

McCRARY C.J., (orally.)

It is insisted by counsel for defendant-- First, that this court has no jurisdiction in the case under the act of congress approved March 3, 1875, entitled 'An act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from the state courts, and for other purposes,' which act, it is insisted, repeals all prior acts upon the subject of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, including the provision authorizing suits therein by national banks. I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction in this case cannot be maintained under the act of March 3, 1875, alone; and if the effect of that act is, as contended by counsel, to repeal so much of section 629 of the Revised Statutes as gives the circuit courts jurisdiction of all suits by or against any banking association established in the district for which the court is held, it follows that the present motion must be sustained. But it is very clear that the act of 1875 has no such sweeping effect as that claimed for it by counsel. It is a general statute on the subject of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, and it does not repeal prior statutes conferring jurisdiction upon those courts in special cases or over particular controversies, unless it is clear from the language employed that such was the intent of congress. There is no express repeal of section 629 of the Revised Statutes. The law does not favor a repeal by implication, and in order to support such an appeal the repugnance between the latter and earlier statutes must be quite plain. If the subsequent act can be reconciled with the former it will not be held to repeal it.

Again, it is a rule long settled that a later statute which is general and affirmative in its provisions does not abrogate a former which is particular or special. Courts will not allow such an exposition of the statute as will revoke or alter, by construction of general words, a previous special statute, where the words may have their proper operation without it. These general propositions are so familiar and so well settled that it is unnecessary to quote authority to support them. Applying them to the act of 1875 we are constrained to hold that it does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, repeal the tenth clause of section 629 of the Revised Statutes, under which this suit is brought. To give to the act of 1875 the construction contended for, and to hold that there is no other statute under which the circuit courts of the United States can in any case have jurisdiction, would lead to consequences disastrous in their effects, and which congress could not have had in contemplation. An examination of prior statutes will show numerous provisions under which suits may be brought in particular cases in the circuit courts of the United States, and some, at least, of which could not be maintained under the act of 1875.

The remaining question is whether jurisdiction can be maintained under subdivision 10 of section 629 of the Revised Statutes, which, as we have seen, has not been repealed, and which gives the circuit courts of the United States jurisdiction 'of all suits by or against any banking association established in the district for which the court is held, under any law providing for national banking associations.'

Counsel for defendant insists that under this statute it is not enough that the suit is brought by a national bank. It...