Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
POWER TO SELECT BANKS' RECEIVERS
Declaring that the imperative duty of the judicial department of government to protect its jurisdiction at the boundaries of power fixed by the constitution and that the naming of state bank receivers judicial function which cannot be exercised or controlled by the governor or legislature, the supreme court Saturday upheld the action of District Judge Carter at Gering in refusing to name E. H. Luikart, secretary of trade and commerce, as receiver for the Mitchell State bank, Irrigators State bank of Bridgeport, Lyman State bank, American State bank of Scottsbluff, Nebraska State bank of Bridgeport, State Bank of Minatare, and Bank of Bayard, says the Nebraska State Journal. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Rose, says that legislative act providing that the secretary of trade and commerce shall be the sole receiver of all insolvent state banks amounts to more than judicial proceedings, properly pending in court of equity for the liquidation of bank, than legislative recommendation to the judiciary to appoint him, as otherwise the enactment would be an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power. Judge Carter was the only district judge who refused to name Luikart, when the latter succeeded Bliss. He appointed E. Torgeson, who had been assistant receiver under Bliss, on the ground that having had actual charge of the liquidation of banks he was in better position to serve all interests than Luikart, who must necessarily name some to handle their liquidation. The court points out in its decision that the statutes nowhere provide for the liquidation of state banks without invoking of the state, and the legislature has never granted to any executive officer, administrative board, department or tribunal authority to wind up affairs of banks without invoking the aid of the court. The law is that the secretary of trade and commerce shall report bank's insolvency to the attorney general, who shall ask the courts to name receiver, and then proceeds to tell the court that it shall name the secretary as receiver. Use of the courts for purposes of liquidation has been the universal practice both before and after the law under discussion was passed. The law-makthemselves provided for judicial liquidation. The court says that as the governnames the secretary and may retire him and name another, the effect of the law is to make it mandatory the courts to name whoever he names, and to modify the judgment of the court. Neither the executive nor the legislative pending cause, can change or modify judicial orders or lawfully require the court to do judicial order pending litigation does not hange with political fortunes or legslative executive appointments.
The framers of the constitutions, state and federal, have adopted the plan of executive, legislative and judicial departments independent of each other. has been regarded by statesmen and philosophers as an outstanding advancement in the sciof government. Thruout the judicial history of the present systhe courts have scrupulously respected the prerogatives the other departments and extended the comity due governmental divisions of equal rank, but courtesy does not extend to the surrendering of judicial power.
