Document: 432 U.S. 312 97 S.Ct. 2307 53 L.Ed.2d 368 THIRD NATIONAL BANK IN NASHVILLE, Petitioner,v.IMPAC LIMITED, INC., et al. No. 76-674. Argued April 26, 1977. Decided June 17, Syllabus Title 12 U.S.C. § 91, which prohibits an "attachment, injunction, or execution" from being issued against a national bank its property before final judgment in any state local court, held, when read context, merely to prevent prejudgment seizure of by creditors and not apply mortgagor-debtor's action seeking preliminary injunction protect real wrongful foreclosure. The legislative history indicates that the statute was originally enacted 1873 it aimed at preventing preferences creditors. In provision itself, word "injunction" is sandwiched between words "attachment" "execution," both are writs used seize property, strongly implying Congress intended only judicial action, prior judgment, would have effect seizing bank's property. Moreover, no reason has been given for assuming give banks engaged making estate mortgage loans privilege available competing lenders, especially unlikely license inflict irreparable injury on others, free normal constraints equitable relief. Pp. 318-324. 541 S.W.2d 139, affirmed. Thomas P. Kanaday, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., petitioner. Gail Pigg, respondents. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 A federal provides certain shall be courts.1 question presented this case whether prohibition applies restraining holding private foreclosure sale, pending adjudication mortgagor's claim loan default. We conclude does apply. 2 * Only essentials rather complex three-party transaction giving rise dispute need stated. Respondents borrowed $700,000 petitioner, bank, finance construction office building. third party, company, agreed provide permanent financing replace upon completion secured deed trust, granted first lien respondents' while outstanding. developed respondents long-term lender over had satisfied preconditions loan. Petitioner contends default because their failure close deny they contend petitioner's remedy lender. On September 4, 1975, petitioner notified proceedings commenced unless loan, plus accrued interest extension fee, paid full 10 days. 3 23, published notice Under Tennessee practice, trust proceeding, but routinely consummated sale restrained initiated mortgagor. litigation filing sworn complaint Chancery Court Davidson County, restrain ground chancellor ordered show cause why should issue. 4 Petitioner's answer set forth basis default, did court's power Based pleadings, exhibits, extensive arguments counsel, found "the existence issues determined hearing (respondents) suffer harm if occurred such hearing." App. 56. He therefore temporarily enjoined 5 Two days later, filed supplemental alleging court lacked jurisdiction enter temporary bank. due course, concluded 91 removed his grant "prohibiting security interest." 69. dissolved interlocutory appeal, "stayed" until appeal Supreme could perfected. 6 reversed. 139 (1976). It "to secure assets solvent insolvent, ratable distribution among general general." Id., 141. believe purpose justified application "a debtor seeking, bank." Ibid. acknowledged additional protection kind already amply protected.2 One member as absolutely forbidding issuance reluctantly dissented what he described majority's "just result." 143. certiorari decide Court's consistent with congressional mandate. 429 1037, 731, 50 748. affirm. 7 critical statutory language reads follows: 8 "(N)o attachment, execution, association suit, State, county, municipal court." 91. 9 At least three different interpretations might placed language. Most narrowly, rest relates insolvency, limited cases verge insolvency. Secondly, regardless financial circumstances, construed prohibit assets. broadly, completely literal reading applied shield also orders protecting parties, including debtors Although there support narrowest statute, broadest rejected cases. Before discussing those cases, we review information about origin revisions statute. II 11 National Currency Act 1864 authorized formation banks.3 Section 52 contained part now prohibited transfer contemplation insolvency view preferring one creditor another. not, however, include That "An require Banks restore Capital impaired, amend National-currency Act." 17 Stat. 603. If added Act,4 amended section virtually identical present was, 57 Act, suits courts. infers amendment qualify courts full, meaning. 13 There direct evidence amendment. passed without debate, Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 3d Sess., 870, 2117-2118 (1873), seem recommended administration.5 However, historical context bill may offer some clue purpose. take fact year panic. number reported involved attachments attempts obtain preference attaching insolvent bank.6 14 When edition Revised Statutes United States prepared 1873, combined concerning preferential transfers acts form 5242, 91.7 argue revision intended. 15 For past century remained preferential-transfer section. III 16 This times.8 two held attached; third, party custody subject attachment creditor. None injunction. earliest three, Pacific Bank v. Mixter, 124 721, 718, 31 L.Ed. 567, "squarely controls" case. Brief 13. Actually, Mixter quite narrow. "whether can issue suit begun Circuit States," U.S., 724, S.Ct., 719. directly applicable suits, were provided law. concluded: 18 "In our act altogether so far concerned, way operates well States. evidently made equality division proceeds operation means confined actual contemplated taken away cannot under circumstances." 727, 721.9 19 (1) statement "under circumstances" makes clear banks. circumstances controlling importance. hold settled most recent decision Van Reed People's Lebanon, 198 554, 25 775, 49 1161: 20 "Since rendition (Mixter )it generally followed authoritative argued plaintiff error case, supra, where insolvent; facts shows time going concern entirely record discloses. Chief Waite, above quoted, broad all conditions banks, nothing likewise specific terms, right foreign banks." 559, 777 (citations omitted). 21 Between Reed, rendered other area, Earle Pennsylvania, 178 449, 915, 44 1146. "attachment sued out (a) garnishee nor it, within meaning section." 454, 917 (emphasis forecloses statute.10 demonstrates reference condition than possible writ 22 (2) Speaking Earle, Harlan stated ban must "be connection previous parts same section" transfers. 453, 917. earlier comment : 23 "The relation injunctions 5242 revisers germane incorporated (concerning transfers), aid enforcement principle 726, 720.11 24 Thus, actions As always, "(t)he particular phrases context";12 anti-injunction scope.13 argues, erred anti-attachment provisions together. simply mistake Statutes. burden think, which, after all, constitutes legal command reflect intent. occurred, seems likely incorrectly revisers, very year, gone undetected century.14 But stronger reasons rejecting argument. 26 (3) First, supports revisers. appears barring actually noted earlier, threat serious problem just allowed manner. similar noncreditors. improbable, instance, many mortgagors enjoin foreclosures accept mortgages circumstances.15 27 (4) Second, itself bears strong signs meant scope. familiar grouped list related meaning.16 "execution." Both hand, "garnishment" conspicuously absent list.17 directed belonging others happens hands implication property.18 28 Third, fails identify interests serve. business unavailable lenders. No advanced disparate treatment. true consistently effectively sought minimize risk fully vindicated Act. 29 Even though supported text fragments history, accepted principles rational reading. Fairly read, prevents own 30 ordered. 32 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE join, dissenting. 33 I fear driven sentimentality reach perceives doing, my view, invades domain Congress. 34 unambiguous terms "no today holds mean says: Debtors judgment. Perhaps holds, well, nearly so. See ante, 317, 322. see 315-316, 319, 321. Since rides roughshod interpretation join either 35 core, rests postulated preceding relating bankruptcy. From supposed connection, justifies imposes bar Also linkage flows somewhat ambiguous suggestion explicitly repudiated decided presence dealing otherwise result revisers' accident. limitation constructs ever Congress, or, indeed, imposed. 36 1864. read: 37 "And further enacted, actions, proceedings, act, circuit, district, territorial district established; state, county city said located, having cases: Provided, comptroller States, located." 116. 38 And provided: 39 "That fifty-seven adding thereto following: 'And further, execution association, proceeding court.' " Mar. 3, 2, 40 whatsoever sweeping scope, court. obvious original reversal reviewed today. 41 happened, separated remainder subsequent compilation statutes. current resting place addendum 1864, Rev.Stat. (1874). seizes accidental reconstruction limit amendment's suggesting really 57. states: "If century." Ante, 321-322. sleight-of-hand transforms simple clerical into placement attempt refashion will stand scrutiny. 42 although 52, ample internal addition reflects considered choice. question, acknowledge, 322 n. 14, typographical error. further" form; 57, unlike proviso use "further" grammatically proper respect compelled attaches logically body established venue "in . located," natural Comptroller Currency, imposing restriction short, suggest unintended context. 43 confidence reliability misplaced. hard faced task compiling mass legislation 1789 performed delicate determining "really" adopting "correcting" more "placement" governing errors marred compilation. M. Price & H. Bitner, Effective Legal Research (3d ed. 1969); Dwan Feidler, Federal Their History Use, Minn.L.Rev. 1008, 1014 (1938). Indeed portion totally omitted rescued inclusion second end usurious rates. Feb. 18, 1875, 320; 5198 (1878). Just involving rates,1 so, too, good conscience construe doubts remain scope provision, 1888 567. quotes following sentence opinion, 320-321: 45 section, 720. 46 confines quotation solitary sentence, able draw proposition explain how happened misplaced acquiesced. sentences immediately carefully selected single-sentence are: 47 "But however be, minds that, stood stands Statutes, authority then providing elect, declared express reenactment change particular. now, originally, paramount law land writes laws exception favor State 721. 48 passage conclusively demonstrates, hardly derive it. error, remaining "undetected century," states, 322, exposed overcome examined provision. gave next 1146 (1900). deposit customer who defendant defendant-customer attach deposit, "an (§ 5242)." fund, immaterial defendant. thus stakeholder. offers distinction fact, interest, securities pledged collateral 455, apparent collateral. Bank, 1161 (1905), unbroken theme. quoted extensively summarized case's "authoritative statute" terms: property." 777. specifically vivid contrast intimations today, solvency threatened. 51 Not surprisingly, light expansive decisions consistent; near unanimity stand. See, e. g., Robinson First Nat. Plainview, F.2d 613 (ND Tex. 1930), aff'd grounds, 55 209 (CA5 1932); Garner Second 66 F. 369 (CC SDNY 1895), dismissed, 79 995 (CA2 1896); Superior Court, 240 Cal.App.2d 109, Cal.Rptr. 358, cert. denied, 385 829, 87 65, 65 (1966); Savannah Craven, 147 Ga. 753, 95 S.E. 246 (1918); Meyer Idaho 175, 77 334 (1904); Chesapeake Nat'l Md. 269 (1874); Freeman Mfg. Co. Republic, 160 Mass. 398, N.E. 865 (1894);2 La Due, Minn. 415, N.W. 367 (1888). drawn creditors, And, Congress' continued acquiescence reaffirms correctness long-settled construction. less clear, draws applications debtors. follows. Surely, interfering mortgaged much funds debtor's building harmful comparable value creditor.3 54 suspect justification belief unfair application. regard, unfairness traced procedure required approval foreclosure, perceived instant eliminated. even attributed solely law, alter remains do feel respectfully dissent. entitled "Transfers insolvency," "All notes, bonds, bills exchange, evidences debt owing banking deposits credit; assignments mortgages, sureties estate, judgments decrees favor; money, bullion, valuable thing use, shareholders creditors; payments money either, commission thereof, manner prescribed chapter, another, except payment circulating utterly null void; (Emphasis added.) appellee using assets, preclude appellant True, allegedly worth excess $1,000,000 sold, assigned, spirited dark night defeat appellee's interest. Chancellor predicated (before dissolved) continue pay contract rate determination merits made. appellant's protected." S.W.2d, 142. 99, 100-101. title Pledge Bonds, Circulation Redemption thereof," amendments refer "National replaced Banking 1863, 665. difference preceded phrase ." mentioned Reports 1872 1873. One, Selma Colby, Ala. 435 (1871), later reached Wall. 609, 687. 8, infra. Colby typical successful Alabama courts, met success New York. Allen Scandinavian How. Pr. 71, 82-83 (Sup.Ct., General Term, 1873); Bowen Medina, 408 1867). Cadle Tracy, Fed.Cas. 967, 2,279 (S.D.N.Y. 1873). another Cooke Boston, Barb. 339 Special 1867), raised possibility attached These wherever business, definition "foreign corporation." included c. IV "Dissolution Receivership." sketched 724-726, 719-720, 687, amendment, invalidated relying based decision, instead, 613-614, added: "It issuing injunctions. true. While July 12, 1882, 163, 290, concurrent ordinary careful exclusive relief sought." dictum, Mixter. situation requested dictum point decision." Cohens Virginia, Wheat. 264, 399, 257. Barrett 423 212, 223, 96 498, 504, 450. relies heavily Holmes' (1894); adopted contrary approach. went say "however be," barred attachments, particular." 720 added). After SEC Securities, Inc., 393 466, 89 564, 571, 668; Haggar Helvering, 308 389, 396, 60 337, 340, 84 340. policy priority claims these acquired effects claims, weakened crippled antecedent seizures. created control resources, interference instance pretended alleged debts ascertained judgment." Planters' Loan Savings Berry, 265, 137 (1893). imply accurately reflected draftsmen make mortgages. Anderson, 341, 353-354, 135, 140, 70 295. were, "security previously contracted." 108. "One rely Latin ejusdem generis noscitur sociis conclusion." Feola, 420 671, 708, 1255, 1275, (Stewart, J., dissenting). forbid ways exercise rem receivership debtor. Yet state-court exercising jurisdiction, judicially foreclose mortgage. 1A J. Moore Practice P 0.214 (2d 1974). Such uses unknown passed. example, sometimes fraud Reubens Joel, N.Y. 488, 492 (1856) (describing York statute). Radzanower Touche Ross Co., 426 148, 1989, 540 (1976); Mercantile Langdeau, 371 555, 558-562, 83 520, 522-524, 523 (1963). suggests open purportedly "contrary approach." 320 10. turn succeeded cited construction" approach" note stated: "We find 1146, qualifies announced case." Thus justifications offered fare better. reason, 322-323, garnishment easily explained adversely affect 917, absence mention allow 323, supporting answered. statute's requires treated alike.

Category: 1