The Bowbells tribune. [volume] (Bowbells, Ward Co., N.D.) 1899-1969, 1921-03-18

forced to make these withdrawals
from the local banks in order to
meet the demands of the conspiring
politicians. of the counties and 9TH
er subdivisions, the small banks
must stand the brunt of the blow.
While none Of the officials in
Bismarck tonight would comment
on, the seriousness of the crisis
which the private banks face as the
result Of the decision, it was gen:
orally conceded that hundreds OF
smaller institutions will be forced
to close their. doors if the attack on
the. mother Bank Of North Dakota
continues. II. 50. :. s. 4.
~ 1t is pointed that the situation
existing tonight is parallel with that
shaped when the I. v. A. initiated
law Withdrawing public deposits
from the Bank OF North Dakota
went into effect
4 At that time the Bank, Of North
Dakota, had it obeyed the law,
would have plunged practically ev-
cry bank in the state into the hands
of the receiver. It was only BY
disobeying the initiated law ats the
pleadings Cof the North Dakota
Bankers association, which spon-:
sored the measure, that the catas-
trophe was averted. $
The syllabus Of the decision Of
the supreme court follows:
The syllabus by the Court
Il. Pursuant to constitutional
and statutory enactment the Bank
of North Dakota as an agency OF
the sovereign power engaged in the
banking business has a distinct sta
tlls separate and apart from that
Of the state itself This status per-
mits it to function Us q distinct and
separate agency of the sovereign
power. IS a'5is r.
-. .A-A garnishment proceeding Is
action; 1t creates no specific lien;
itNseeks t0:hold the garnishee to a
personal liability and judgment de-
pendent upon his liability to the de-
fendant.1t is a, remedy separate
and distinct from attachment or ex-
ecution. 4. 55 :: a..
"B Section 8177 G. L, 1918,
which relates to executions against
the state, has neither reference nor
application to a garnishmenti pro-
ceeding ancllary to suit against
the Bank Of North Dakota.
.:'C-Where; a county has institut-
ed action to recover deposits made
in the Bank of North Dakota and
also garnishment procee d ings
against various state and national
banks by reason of redeposits made
by the Bank of North Dakota in
such banks, it is held pursuant to
the. expressed provisions Of Section
20. Chapter 147, Laws 1919 (Bank
Of North Dakota act) that such
garnishment proceedings are pro-
per-" @ gs:3 10. ss*:55. i 4
!. In his opinion Justice 4, Bronson
sets out that there are two funda-
mental questions involved. First,
the status Of the Bank Of North Da-
kota. and second, the right to avail
OF garnishment process in a pro-
ceeding against it. ssjS,s5 5.tT.3
Not Part OF State
" THE fact that an agency is
public Institution or functions as an
agency Of the sovereign power does
not necessarily mean that Its en-
gagements are the direct engage
ments Of the state and; that no as
sault by action may be made upon:
this agency by reason Of the inhib-.
ition against suing state without
its consent, = says Justice Bronson.
The state may prescribe that such
agency shall be subject to action"
Judge Bronson, relating the stat
utes creating the Bank OF North Das
kota. also refers to the case I in
which Carl Kositzky, former state
auditor, tried to examine the bank,
statingzathat the supreme court at
that time held that the matter was
one of Legislative Intention and the
bank act had given this power III to
the state examiner, and recalling
the decision Which said tho bank