Washington-Alaska Bank v. Dexter Horton Nat. Bank

Good Law
263 F. 304·4 Alaska Fed. 876·1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2014
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 1920No. 3218California5,505 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The appellant contends that there remained due only $4,510.67 of the appellee’s original claim after applying the $25,000 payment of August 6, 1912, and the net amount which was realized on the foreclosure sale, and that the remainder of the appellee’s claim, as allowed by the court below, represents interest, which the appellee was not entitled to receive out of the estate in the hands of the receiver. The court below applied the rule established in Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U.S. 131 , 19 S.Ct. 360 , 43 L.Ed. 640 , that the creditor can prove for and receive dividends upon the full amount of his claim, regardless of any sums received from his collateral after the transfer of the assets from the debtor in insolvency. *880 provided that he shall not receive more than the full amount due him, and held that any doubt as to the applicability of the rule was dissolved when consideration was had of the terms of the contract between the receiver and the appellee, a contract which was made with the approval of the court below, and the fact that at the time when the contract was made the value of the Gold Bar stock was considered…

Dissenting Opinion

Ross, J.

(dissenting).

It is contended on behalf of the appellants, among other things, that by reason of the laws of the state of Nevada, under which the insolvent bank was incorporated, the appellee was not entitled to any payment out of the funds in the hands of the receiver until all of the depositors of the bank, as well as all holders of exchange against it, were paid in full, which full payments, it is undisputed, have never been made; the record showing the unsecured creditors to have been paid but 50 per cent, of their allowed claims.

One of the provisions of the Constitution of Nevada in force at the time the insolvent bank was organized declared: “The Legislature shall pass no special act in any matter relating to corporate powers except for municipal purposes; but corporations may be formed under general laws, and all such laws may from time to time be altered or repealed.” Article 8, § 1.

The subsequent act of March 24, 1909 (St. 1909, p. 251), of its Legislature, provided, among other things, as follows:

“Sec. 3. The term ‘bank’ or ‘banking corporation,’ as used in this act, shall be construed to mean any incorporated banking institution which shall have been incorporated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.