Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-03-31

NSOntlnue0 FROM Page Onc)
has not been credited in the depositor's
pass-book at this request within four
teen or more years. Mutual saving fund
societies not having capital stock
shares are excepted.
Millions of Dollars Affected
1t is estimated that there are mill
lions of dollars in State banking in
stitutions which are escheatable under
the act of 1915. When Auditor Gem
eral Powell required the reports, the
Union Trust Company, of Pittsburgh:
the Columbia National Bank, Pitts
burgh. and the Germantown Trust
Company filed bills of complaints and
asked for preliminary injunctions. The
state answered with a demurrer, which
has been sustained in each of the
cases by Judge Kunkel, who has direct
ed that judgment be entered against
the banking concerns and in favor of
Auditor General Powell. Appeals may
be taken.
If it is decided finally by the higher
courts that the State can require a
report of escheatable property, and
after giving the published notices re-
quired by the act of 1915 can take over
the deposits, these unclaimed millions
will be turned into the State Treas
ury.
Points At Issue
In the opinion in the case of the
Union Trust Company, one of the three
argued several months ago, Judge Kun
kel states in part:
IF 1T once be conceded, as it must be,
that the Commonwealth possesses the
power to escheat,-whether to escheat
be taken in the present statue to mean
to take property the owner of which
has abandoned it or has died without
heirs need not now be determined
1t follows as a necessary incident to
the exercise of the power that the
Commonwealth may make inquiry with
the view of discovering where escheat-
able property is located, or in whose
possession it may be found"
The court then summarizes the vari-
Gus sections of the act of 1915, con-
cluding these with the following rul-
ing:
"We can conceive of no sound ruling
why it (the Commonwealth may now
in the way provided by the statue dis
cover for itself the whereabouts of
escheatable property, rather than wait
for the information from a volunteer
informant. We do not think the pro-
visions of the statute requiring re-
port of property presumptively escheat-
able are open to the objection that they
violate Section s. Article 1. of the Con-
stitution, which secures against un-
Most of the constitutional objections
urged against the statute apply to
those parts of it which relate to the
actual escheat of the property reported
Many of them the plaintiff has no
interest in and has no stading to raise
They may very properly be raised
when the Commonwealth proceeds un-
der the act to exercise it's power to
escheat. These objections are that the
statute impairs the obligation of the
contract between the plaintiff and the
depositors or the owners of the prop
erty which it holds in possession in vio-
lation of Article I. Secaion 1917, of the
State Constitution. and of Article L.
Section 10, of the Federal Constitu-
ton"
Objections Premature
These objections are premature
Judge Kunkel rules The opinion does
not sustain the objections assailing the
sufficiency of the title and the conse-
quent validity of the sections of the
statute directing the report for the
discovery of escheatable property
The absence of notice of penal
clauses also does not make this act
unconstitutional the ruling continues
In conclusion the court states
I'VE think il sufficient to say that
a court of equity has no Jurisdiction
to enjoin proceedings of the Common
declared. where If the escheat should
be found by the inquest every question
could be decided by a traverse. No more
will 1T under like conditions enjofn the
preliminary steps taken for the pur-
pose of discovering the whereabouts
of property so circumstanced as rea-
sonably to raise the presumption that
1t is liable to escheat. Upon consid-
Grafton of the whole case we are of
the opinion that there is nothing in
the bill to warrant the interposition of
court of equity"
The demurrer is then sustained and
judgment given against the plaintiff.
Banks Under Laws
The opinion in the Columbia Ma
tional Bank case rules that national
banks doing business in the Common
wealth come under the laws of the
Commonwealth, SO long as the State
laws do not interfere with the laws
of the United States controlling and
regulating these banks.
The legislative intention to include
national banks I'm the escheat act is
evident. the court states. In passing
on the question of national banks be-
ing excluded from state regulations,
when those regulations interfere with
their proper functions, Judge Kunkel