Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-20
It WAS DECISION DAY IN COURT
Judges Van Dyke and Wade
Hand Down Opinions.
The Points in Brief Of the Documents
in Question.
A Number Of Gases More or Less I'm
portant Which Reached Their
Final Point Yesterday.
Court Notes.

JuuKo van OyK0 yesterday uhuucu
down an opinion in the case of s. Nick
ley, jr., vs.. John Brown ct AL, in WIN
interesting questions relative to
power of the state to require cert =
acts of national banks are discus
counsel admitting that some of nc
points have not heretofore been ruled
upon.
The opinion, which is quite long,
says in reviewing the case that the
plaintiff is the endorsee of q promissory
note made to a national bank. The de-
feDse relied upon was raised by way of
plea in abatement on the part of defend
ants that the national bank, endorser or
assignor of the note in question, had not
complied with the requirements of the
statute of this state of 1875, requiring
the publication and recording of certain
statements of banks and banking cor
porations doing business in the state.
The state law in question, as one of its
penalties, provides that no corporation
or person who fails to comply with such
provision shall maintain or prosecute
any action or proceeding in any court in
the state, nor shall any assignee of any
such corporation or person maintain any
action until the law has been complied
with on the part of the assignor.
1t was stipulated on the trial in this
case that the national bank in question
had not complied with the state law
also, that, except for this defense, the
plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The question presented, therefore,
was whether the legislative act of 1876
is applicable to national banks. This
question Judge Van Dyke discusses at
considerable length. Referring to the
state legislation on this subject he says !:
In 1873 this state passed what is
known as the bank commissioners act,
and in the case of Bank of British Co.
lumbia vs. Calm (79 CAL, 463) it was
held that the act creating the board of
bank commissioners did not repeal or
supersede the act of 1875 requiring the
publishing and recording OF statements; /;
that the earlier act was simply for the
protection OF persons dealing with the
banks OF California by requiring notice
of it's financial condition to be pub
commissioners act is to enable the COM
missioners to investigate and supervise
the condition of the banks"
ued, 1.-THE bank com mmissioners' act is
visitorial in it's nature, and it is conceded
that this act does not apply to national
banks. But the defendants counsel
claims that inasmuch as this act of 1875
is not visitorial in its nature it does not
apply"
The court goes on to say that the real
question is whether the state possesses
any power whatever over national
banks so as to interfere with their pow
ers to carry out the functions by which
they, as national banks, are designed to
serve the government of the United
States. Defendants counsel admitted
that the precise question involved had
not come up, but referred to cases which,
from analogy, he claimed supported his
contention. But an examination of
these cases, the court holds, shows that
the state legislation involved in them
did not impose additional conditions
upon the bank as such before it could
transact business or maintain suits in
court, rs it does in the act of 1870. In
other words, although congress declares
that banking association formed under
its act may sue in all states, the state
law prohibits it from doing 80 until it
performs the additional acts specified.
After discussing further the powers of
the government and the states in theee
matters the court concludes by saying
that he is of the opinion that the state
law Of 1876 does not apply to national
banks, and that the plea in abatement
should be overruled and judgment 20 for
the plaintiff, and it is 80 ordered.