Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/372/591
Timestamp: 2013-12-21 10:25:41
Document Index: 55369511

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 25', '§ 45', '§ 25', '§ 94', '§ 94', '§ 30', '§ 94', '§ 45']

MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK v. Earl T. ROBERTSON et al. MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK v. Elvin E. HILLS et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK v. Earl T. ROBERTSON et al. MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK v. Elvin E. HILLS et al.
372 U.S. 591 (83 S.Ct. 914, 9 L.Ed.2d 961)
Decided: March 25, 1963
Respondents in these two cases purchased house trailers in Nebraska, executing and delivering notes and lien instruments to the local dealer who in turn negotiated them to the petitioner, a national bank located in Michigan. Respondents have now sued petitioner, alleging violations of the Nebraska Installment Loan Act and challenging the validity of the transactions and of the documents executed in connection therewith.
applied to the exclusion of the Nebraska statutes. These contentions were rejected by the Nebraska courts and respondents obtained judgments for all of the relief requested.
All of the reasons, save one, advanced by the Nebraska Supreme Court for not applying 12 U.S.C. 94 in these cases we have already rejected in Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 83 S.Ct. 520, 9 L.Ed.2d 523. The additional ground relied upon in No. 55 was that '(t)he instant action was a local action, not a transitory action. (s)ee § 25404 R.R.S.1943;
§ 45154, R.R.S.1943,' 172 Neb. 385, 394, 109 N.W.2d 716, 722, and thus within the exception to 12 U.S.C. 94 carved out by Casey v. Adams, 102 U.S. 66, 26 L.Ed. 52. This ground is likewise untenable. The applicable Nebraska venue statute on its face allows suit in more than one county and, in the case of foreign corporations such as petitioner, Nebraska Revised Statute § 25408
appears to permit suit in any county where the defendant can be found. By its very nature, this is a considerably different kind of suit from the one to determine interests in property at its situs which was involved in Casey v. Adams. Moreover, although § 94 by its terms is applicable to all actions against national banks, when it was re-enacted in the Act of February 18, 1875, c. 80, 18 Stat. 320, it was appended to the provisions dealing with usury actions against national banks. See Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, supra, 371 U.S. at 561 and 568, 83 S.Ct. at 523 and 527. We think Congress clearly intended 12 U.S.C. 94 to apply to suits involving usury and the related matters at issue here.
I concur in the Court's remand of these cases, as I agree that, even if the bank could under 12 U.S.C. 94 be sued only in the county where it is located, the bank may waive the benefits of the statute. First Charlotte Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U.S. 141, 10 S.Ct. 37, 33 L.Ed. 282. But I concur only in the result, since I am in total disagreement with the Court's interpretation of § 94 and would prefer to affirm the judgments below holding that the Michigan National Bank can be sued in the Nebraska courts. Each lawsuit grew out of a business transaction in which the Michigan bank financed a Nebraska resident's purchase of a house trailer from a Nebraska dealer. Now, under this Court's holding, these people in Nebraska who allege that their contracts were usurious under Nebraska law must, unless the bank be held to have waived statutory venue, go all the way to Michigan to try to vindicate their rights against the bank. This harsh result is held to be compelled by a provision of the Act of June 3, 1864, c. 106, § 30, 13 Stat. 108, now codified in 12 U.S.C. 94. I do not know of a single Act Congress has passed in a century which clearly and explicitly denies a person in one State the privilege of filing suit in his own State against an out-of-state company where service can be obtained and where the suit arises out of a transaction within the State. And I am not willing to find such a congressional purpose in § 94. I realize that this Court did hold several weeks ago in Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 83 S.Ct. 520, 9 L.Ed.2d 523, that this statute requires a suit in a state court against a national bank to be brought in the county where the bank is located. Langdeau merely required that the plaintiff sue in one county of the State rather than in another. Formal logic strictly applied might call for expansion of that holding to cover the different factual situation here. But that would require a plaintiff to go to another State hundreds of miles from home to bring suit for a wrong done him in a transaction in his own State, a result which I cannot believe Congress intended.
'Violation of sections 45114 to 45155 in connection with any indebtedness, however acquired, shall render such indebtedness void and uncollectible.' Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45155; see State ex rel. Beck v. Associates Discount Corp., 168 Neb. 298, 96 N.W.2d 55.
25404. 'Local actions involving statutory liability, acts and bonds of public officers. Actions for the following causes must be brought in the county where the cause or some part thereof arose: (1) An action for the recovery of a fine, forfeiture, or penalty, imposed by a statute * * *.'
'An action, other than one of those mentioned in sections 25401 to 25403, against a nonresident of this state or a foreign corporation may be brought in any county in which there may be property of, or debts owing to said defendant, or where said defendant may be found; but if such defendant be a foreign insurance company, the action may be brought in any county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose.'