Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-03-12
SUPREME COURT
DECIDES CASE
AGAINST LElNKE
Grace Alone Dissents From
Views of the Other -Four
= Justices.
ROBINSON DENIES
GUARANTY APPLIES.
In Ex-Curia Opinion Points
Out That Debt Limit is
Already Exceeded.
Especial to The Herald.) }

Especial to The Herald.)
Bismarck, N. D., March
12.-The supreme court Of
North Dakota, in a deci-
sion announced today by
Chief Justice ]. E. Robin
son, holds that counties
may garnishee funds Of the
Bank of North Dakota
which are held in local
banks. ...s..,
The decision was rem
dered in the case brought
on behalf of the state of
North Dakota to restrain
Sargent county from gar
nlsheeing Bank of North
Dakota deposits in banks
IN that county.
The decision of the court
is by four judges, with Jus
tlce Grace alone dissent
ing. 1t is regarded as one
OF the most important de-
cisions of the court affect
ing state finances and the
future of the Bank of
North Dakota.
ROBINsON's VIEWS.
Justice Robinson. in outlining
his views on the matter In his
satREae Hselsl se.= holds: "a,
JN1h>s ~ clearly have sSfe
right OF gar1it1hment to obtain the
money Of tho hank. A more dras-
NC. last resort remedy. would be
to force q ''default5ng bank" into
liquidation.
2. The Bank OF North Dakotn
is not a part of the state govern
mcnt. and that in creating a pri-
vate corporation the state OF
North Dakota docs not impartr any
OF Its privileges or prerogatives,
that it lays down its sovereignty
so far as respects transactions Of
the corporation.
3. 1t is unconstitutional to
guarantee the deposits of the
Bank OF North Dakota by the
state. because the state debt finiit
of s2.000,OOO is exceeded.
The court concerned itself in tn
opinion with the question OF the rieh
OF garnishment. while Justice Robin
son, in expressing his personal views
advances also the view that the dc
posits of the Bank of North Dakot:
are not constitutionally guaranteed b,
the state.
Counties May Continue.
The court decision gives counties i,
various parts of the state, who hav
garnisheed funds of the Bank o
North Dakota in local banks. becaus
the Bank of North Dakota refuses t
pay money owing to the counties, TIL
right to continue this method of scol
lecting money.
Many counties have been forced +
continue making deposits in the Banl
OF North Dakota under a ruling tha
checks would not be paid unless the
discontinue to deposit money. If tn
counties can garnishee funds in loca
banks it is expected that they vii
avoid the necessity of continuing t
deposit funds in the Bank OF Mort
Dakota and will deplete the deposit
OF the Bank of North Dakota in
large amount.
Bank Private Institution.
The court in effect holds also tha
the Bank of North Dakota is a priyat
banking institution which has been
subject of contention in legal circle
of the state. AS private banking OF
ganization it has been alleged by tn
political opponents Of the bank, 1t
subject to be closed for failure to NEE
its obligations.
In expressing his personal opin.
ion that the deposits In the Bank
or North Dakota cannot he guar.
anteed by the state Justice Robin
sons views bear on a point raised
IN the recent investigations con.
Quoted by the North Dakota lekis-
lature. The N'anparcsan friends OF
the bank have declared that the
charges that the state may lose
great suIAS of money are unfound.
ed because the deposits Of tho
Bank Of North Dakota arr guar.
antceh by the state, and that II
has tho entire credit of the state
of North Dakota behind IL.
Opinion of the Court. Y
In his decision Justice Bronson sci
;out that there are two fundamenta
questions involved. .
First-The status Of the Bank q
North Dakota, and
second-The right to avail 9of, gar
/ nishment process in a ,proceedin
against it.
The fact that an agency is a pub
lie institution. or functions as AZ, ~
ency of the sovereign power, does nS
necessarily mean that its engagement
are the direct engagements OF IN
state and that no assault by acttc
may be made upon this agency %
Continued on Page