Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/332/245
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 13:11:39
Document Index: 711770879

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 57', '§ 118', '§ 5', '§ 349', '§ 1464', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 31', '§ 71', '§ 406', '§ 1729', '§ 606', '§ 687', '§ 13', '§ 22', '§ 4', '§ 14', '§ 250']

FAHEY et al. v. MALLONEE et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
332 U.S. 245 (67 S.Ct. 1552, 91 L.Ed. 2030)
Argued: and Submitted April 30, 1947.
Personal service was secured upon Ammann, the Conservator, but Fahey, the Federal Home Loan Bank Commissioner officially an inhabitant of the District of Columbia, could not be served in California. A motion for substituted service, therefore, was granted and process was served upon him in the District of Columbia. It was believed that this was authorized by Judicial Code, § 57, 28 U.S.C. 118, 28 U.S.C.A. § 118. Ammann moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. Fahey appeared specially to move dismissal or quashing return of service on him upon the ground that he could not, in his official capacity, be sued in California and had not been served properly with process. Neither had answered the complaint, nor had their time to do so expired, when final judgment was granted against them.
The three-judge court set a variety of pending motions for argument and, after argument mainly on the constitutionality of § 5(d), with only pleadings and motion papers before it, held the section unconstitutional, ordered removal of the Conservator, permanently enjoined the authorities from holding an administrative hearing on the matter, permanently enjoined an apprehended merger, restored the institution to its former management, ordered the Conservator to account and enjoined these authorities 'from ever asserting any claims, right, title or interest' in or to the Association's property. The case is here on direct appeal. 50 Stat. 752—753, 28 U.S.C. 349a, 380a, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 349a, 380a.
Its defect is said to consist of delegation of legislative functions to the supervising authority without adequate standards of action or guides to policy. Section 5(d) of the Act gives to the Board 'full power to provide in the rules and regulations herein authorized for the reorganization, consolidation, merger, or liquidation of such associations, including the power to appoint a conservator or a receiver to take charge of the affairs of any such association, and to require an equitable readjustment of the capital structure of the same; and to release any such association from such control and permit its further operation.' 48 Stat. 133, 12 U.S.C. 1464(d), 12 U.S.C.A. § 1464(d). This, the District Court held, was unconstitutional delegation of the congressional function. It relied on Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 5 S.Ct. 24 1, 79 L.Ed. 446, and Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570, 97 A.L.R. 947.
Bank Conservation Act of March 9, 1933, § 203, 48 Stat. 2 3, 12 U.S.C. 203, 12 U.S.C.A. § 203; Banking Act of 1933, § 31, 48 Stat. 194, 12 U.S.C. 71a, 12 U.S.C.A. § 71a; National Housing Act, § 406, 48 Stat. 1259—1260, 12 U.S.C. 1729, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1729; E.g., New York Banking Laws, § 606, 4 McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, c. 2; Page's Ohio General Code Ann. § 687; 1 Deering's California General Laws, Act 986, § 13.11; Massachusetts Laws Ann. c. 167, § 22; c. 170B, § 4; Jones Illinois Stat.Ann., § 14.40, Ill.Rev.Stat. 1945, c. 32, § 250.
NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD OF the State of CALIFORNIA v. ORRIN W. FOX CO. et al. No. A-451.
Alan MACKEY, Registrar of Motor Vehicles of Massachusetts, Appellant, v. Donald E. MONTRYM, etc.
ECCLES et al. v. PEOPLES BANK OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, CAL.