Court Opinion

ID: 9426995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:24.717561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:04.379582
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Stewart,
concurring.
The Court’s opinion, despite its disclaimer, may be read by some to imply approval of the view that, for purposes of *46federal-court venue under 12 U. S. C. § 94, a national bank is “established” only in the district that includes its charter county. See ante, at 39-41, 44, 45. I have serious doubt that the cases so holding were correctly decided,* and in any event this question remains an open one here.
Today we decide only that for purposes of state-court venue under § 94 a national bank is “located” in any county in which it has a branch bank. There is no need in this case to consider the meaning of the word “established” in § 94, or to draw any contrast between the words “established” and “located.” It is upon this understanding that I join the opinion of the Court.

The first case to decide the question, Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank, 81 F. 2d 19 (CA2), relied primarily on a First Circuit decision holding that a national bank chartered in New York was not “located” in Puerto Rico, where it operated a branch bank, for purposes of taxation of the bank’s shares, National City Bank v. Domenech, 71 F. 2d 13, and on the general provision for corporate venue which at that time limited venue to the district of incorporation. See 1 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.141 [4], p. 1352 (2d ed. 1977). Neither analogy compelled the Second Circuit’s conclusion. Subsequent cases have not amplified Leonardi’s reasoning. See United States Nat. Bank v. Hill, 434 F. 2d 1019 (CA9), and cases cited therein.