Tuthill v. George S. May Intern. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1967 |
| Citation | 285 N.Y.S.2d 317,55 Misc.2d 542 |
| Parties | William A. TUTHILL, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL CO., and Continental Illinois National Bank andTrust Company of Chicago, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago (hereinafter referred to as Continental) moves pursuant to Rule 3211(a) 8 of the C.P.L.R. to vacate service of the summons and dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction over it.
Continental is a national banking association organized and operating pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C., Chapter 2. Its principal place of business, as set forth in its charter, is Chicago, Illinois, and it is established and located there.
Continental maintains a correspondent office in New York City. A summons and complaint were served upon an officer of defendant bank at its office in New York City.
The complaint names Continental and George S. May International Company (hereinafter referred to as May) as defendants. Plaintiff, according to the complaint, was employed as an executive in charge of May's New York City office from March 1957 to March 25, 1967. The plaintiff, during the course of his employment, made payments into an 'Employees Profit Sharing Trust' which, when his employer's contributions are added, totalled $3,047.12 as of March 25, 1967. Plaintiff seeks to obtain the proceeds of the trust which are alleged to be deposited with Continental.
Continental admits that it is the depository for the trust, but points out the following facts:
1. The trust was established and has been administered in Chicago, Illinois.
2. All funds received for the trust have been and are deposited in Chicago, Illinois.
3. No funds have been or are deposited in New York.
The thrust of defendant's argument is that it cannot be sued in this State, under the allegations contained in the complaint, because of its status as a national bank.
A national bank for jurisdictional purposes is a citizen of the state in which it is established or located (28 U.S.C. § 1348; See also Cope v. Anderson, Receiver, 331 U.S. 461, 67 S.Ct. 1340, 91 L.Ed. 1602) and can only be sued as set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 94:
' § 94. Venue of suits
Actions and proceedings against any association under this chapter may be had in any district or Territorial court of the United States held within the district in which such association may be established, or in any State, county, or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located having jurisdiction in similar cases.'
A national banking association is 'established' or 'located', as those terms are used in Section 94, only at the national banking association's principal place of business as set forth in its charter (buffum v. Chase National Bank of City of New York, 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 58, cert. denied 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 558, 96 L.Ed. 702; Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 19, cert. denied 298 U.S. 677, 56 S.Ct. 941, 80 L.Ed. 1398).
It has been well settled that the venue requirements, with reference to suits against a national bank, as set forth in Section 94 are mandatory (First National Bank of Charlotte v. Morgan, 132 U.S. 141, 10 S.Ct. 37, 33 L.Ed. 282; Leonardi v. Chase National Bank of the City of New York, supra; See also Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 83 S.Ct. 520, 9 L.Ed.2d 523 and Rabinowitz v. Kaiser-Frazer Corp., 198 Misc. 312, 96 N.Y.S.2d 638).
Plaintiff argues that Section 94 is not a bar to this action in view of the fact that he has invoked the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. He cites Casey v. Adams, 102 U.S. 66, 26 L.Ed. 52 (1880) in support of his argument.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Casey v. Adams, supra, held that local actions are in the nature of suits in rem and are to be prosecuted where the thing in which they are found is situated.
The instant action, however, is not within the exception to Section 94 as expounded in Casey v. Adams. The trust was established and has been administered in Chicago, Illinois. No trust funds have been or are deposited in New York. The only way in which this Court can render a decision with respect to the obligations of Continental under this trust is to acquire in personam jurisdiction over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago
...local action exception has been recognized only where actions involving national banks are In rem. See E.g., Tuthill v. George S. May Intern. Co., 55 Misc.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 317, affmd. 31 A.D.2d 721, 296 N.Y.S.2d 1021. Such a situation is not presented here and therefore the local action......
-
Helco, Inc. v. First National City Bank
...of § 94.6 For other cases in which waiver could not be ascribed because of insufficient forum contact, see Tuthill v. George S. May Int'l. Co., 55 Misc.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 317 (1967); Sulil Realty Corp. v. Rye Motors, Inc., 45 Misc.2d 458, 257 N.Y.S. 2d 111 (Sup.Ct.1965); Stewart v. First ......
-
Security Mills of Asheville, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N. A.
...business or main office, even though it maintains branches in other counties of the state.' See also, Tuthill v. George S. May International Co., et al., 55 Misc.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 317 (Supreme Court). The only authorities cited by the Appellate Division in support of its decision are fed......
-
United States National Bank v. Hill
...v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 272 Cal.App.2d 724, 727, 77 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614 (1969); Tuthill v. George S. May Int'l Co., 55 Misc.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 317 (1967); cf. Levin v. Great W. Sugar Co., 274 F. Supp. 974 The decision reached by the district judge may reflect the mo......