Article Text
WINNER COURT RULING IN BANK CONTEST (Continued from Page One) in the federal court. The-third judge from this majority opinion, but held that the permanent injunction should not issue because of the fact that the state legislature, since the granting the temporary restraining order, had passed law as effecting closed banks, setting aside an important feature claimed in Dr. Conkling's Judge Nathan P. Bryan, of the New Orleans court of appeals, and Judge Lake Jones of the federal district court ruled in favor of the comptroller in the matter of the amount of claims involved. Judge Halsted L. Ritter, of the Miami federal court, dissented from ruling. Dr. Conkling's suit sought to prevent the issuance of an order by the comptroller which would allow the re-opening of the bank which already is credited with two failures. H: pointed out in his plea that he considered his opportunity of recovering substantial portion of his deposits in the defunct bank considerably better under the present receivership than the bank were allowed to resume business. temporary injunction was grantby Judge Ritter in Miami approximately two months ago. Comptroller Amos, through contested the jurisdiction of the Miami federal court in the case, as well as other features, particularly that of the amount of claims held by Dr. Conkling, which the attorargued was insufficient to warrant granting of the restraining order. While the court's order recognized the amount of Dr. Conkling's claim as in excess of $3,000-the sum held necessary to set up plea in such an action-the majority opinion was that in all probability, in final settlement the bank's affairs, this claim would not total such sum and that, for this reason, the amount involved was insufficient in court. The text of the order follows: C. M. Conkling filed bill in the southern district of Florida to enjoin Ernest Amos as comptroller from authorizing failed state bank to re-open and resume business upon compliance being shown with provision chapter 11489, acts of 1927, which reads as follows: "That upon the and consent in writing of the representatives of an amount of the deposits of any such bank seventy-five per cent or more of the total deposits such bank, the comptroller shall by order freeze all deposits of such bank such and conditions as he may fix as one of the terms of such resumption of business. The just quoted provision also apin section 6108, compiled genlaws of Florida (1927). The case comes before us upon an application for interlocutory injunction on the ground that the statute is uncohstitutional. 28 U. S. C. sec. 380 According to the averments of the bill, the plaintiff is citizen of California: the defendant is citizen of Florida, residing in the northThe First American Bank Trust Company is located at West Palm Beach in the southern district, insolvent and in the hands of receiver. The defendant is state comptroller and unless restrained will issue an order authorizing the bank to resume business in pursuance of the statute in question, under an agreement by which the depositors will receive in five per cent their deposits, And will be paid such balance only as may be realized upon liquidation of existing assets of the bank. If the bank is not allowed to resume business there enough money in the hands of the receiver pay depositors 10 per cent of their deposits, and the will realize tion by the than they will receive the bank be permitted to resume business; but the difference in amount uncertain and cannot be ascertained until there has been final liquidation. At the hearing the plaintiff filed an amendment which he alleged that he fully expects the entire amount of the deposits if the present receivership be continued; but he failed to furnish any evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, which tended to support that conclusion. There was no direct averment to the effect that the bank owned any real estate or any personal property of fixed character, although an exhibit to the bill refers to real estate which the bank now owns, or might acquire in the liquidation of its The given authority by law to close the doors of bank which is or in an unsound condition. and to receiver with the of the judge of the circuit court in whose jurisdiction the bank located. Compiled general laws of Florida, sec. 6102. The comptroller has appeared specially and, objecting the venue, insists upon his privilege being sued in the district where he resides. 28 U. sec. 113. Plaintiff replies that this suit of local nature, and therefore was properly brought in the southern district 28 S. sec. 115. The under bill does not allege clearly and directly that there is real estate or other property of fixed character which would be affected by the decree in such manner as to make the suit one of local nature. As is probable that upon final hearing the suit will develop to be one of local nature, we assume from the incomplete averments of the bill that it is. The comptroller also raises the objection the bill falls show that there is sufficient amount in controversy to give this court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. sec. 41. That objection in our opinion well taken. The amount of the deposits which holds by assignment slightly in of $3,000, but from the of fact, as distinguished from of the pleader, it is apparent that plaintiff's claim will be reduced below that amount whether the bank remains in the hands of receiver or is allowed to resume business. It is not fair inference from the averments of the bill that the plaintiff will receive the amount of his deposit in full out of the assets of the bank If administered by receiver and would receive out of the same assets practically nothing save the