Case: FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ST. LOUIS v. STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE INFORMATION OF BARRETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Abbreviation: First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri
Decision Date: 1924-01-28
Docket Number: No. 252
Citation: 263 U.S. 640
Volume: 263
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ST. LOUIS v. STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE INFORMATION OF BARRETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Judges: The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Butler authorize mé to say that they concur in this dissent.
Pages: 640–668

Head Matter:
FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ST. LOUIS v. STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE INFORMATION OF BARRETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
No. 252.
Argued May 7, 1923; restored to docket for reargument May 21, 1923; reargued November 21, 22, 1923.
Decided January 28, 1924.
1. National banks are subject to state laws that do not interfere with the purposes of their creation, tend to destroy or impair their efficiency as federal agencies, of conflict with the laws of the United States. P. 656.
2. National banks can exercise only the powers expressly granted by federal statutes and such incidental powers as are necessary to the conduct of the business for which they are established. Id.
3. Under the National Bank Law, power to establish branches is withheld.. P. 657. Rev. Stats., §§ 5134, 5190, 5138.
4. The power cannot be sustained as an-incidental power, under Rev. Stats., § 5136; for the mere multiplication of places where the powers of a bank may be exercised is not a necessary incident of the banking business; and, moreover,.a power which the statute, by fair construction, denies, cannot exist incidentally. P. 659.
5. A state statute prohibiting branch banks is valid in application to a national bank; for it does-not frustrate the purpose for which the bank was created, or interfere with the discharge of its duties to the Government, or impair its efficiency as a federal agency. Id. '
6. The prohibition may be enforced by the State, by Such form of procedure as the State may deem appropriate, — in this case by an information in the nature of quo warranto. P. 660.
297 Mo. 397, affirmed. ■
Error to a .judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri, ousting the plaintiff in error from operating a branch bank, in a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, in--stituted by the State at the information of her Attorney General. For the order restoring the case to the docket for reargument, see 262 U. S. 732. ' '
Mr. Frank H. Sullivan and 'Mr. C. A. Severance, with whom Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Mr. James Cajones, Mr. Lon 0. Hocker, Mr. Eugene H. Angert and Mr. Wm..J. Hughes were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.
- I. The State is without power to bring proceedings to question compliance by a national bank with its charter.
National banks are instrumentalities of the National Government. 'McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; First National Bank-Y. California, 262 U. S. 366.
A proceeding of this kind is the prerogative of the sovereign which created the corporation. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 460; Territory v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236; Mc- Clung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat: 598; First National Bank v. Union Trust Co., 244 U. S. 427; Van Reed v. People’s National Bank, 198 U. S. 554; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 51; California v. Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; Mc-Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Farmers Bank v. Minnesota, ■ 232 IT. S. 516.
• The proper relations between our dual governments make it impossible that a State should possess such power. Authorities supra; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 518; Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 405; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257.
The enforcement of charter limitations on national banks is denied to citizens because it is- the function of the National Government. National Bank v. Matthews, 98 IT. S. 621; National Bank v. Whitney, 103 IT. S. 99; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 IT. S. 405.
Such a power cannot exist in the States without a sacrifice of the uniformity which was one of the purposes of the National Bank Act. Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220.
Congresé, in conferring jurisdiction on courts of the States over actions against national banks, has reserved actions of this type to the general government, and jurisdiction thereof to the national courts. C. 58, § 55, 12 Stat. 680; c. 106, § 56, 13 Stat. 116; Jud. Code, § 24 (16) ; c. 80, § 300b, 18 Stat. 320; c. 290, § 4, 22 Stat. 163; c. 373, § .4, 24 Stat. 554.
State courts have denied the power here under consideration. State v. Curtis, 35 Conn. 374; State v. Bowen, 8 S. Car. 400; Harkness v. Guthrie, 27 Utah, 248, affd. 199 U. S. 148; State v. Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co., 47 Oh. St. 130.
II. A state statute attempting to limit or define the powers of a national bank is invalid.
It is only general legislation of the State which is binding on national banks. National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275; .McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. S. 347; First National Bank v. California, 262 U. S. 366.
The Congress, having defined- the powers of the bank, has, in so doing, by implication, excluded those not conferred, and hence occupied the entire field of legislation on that subject. Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290¡Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Car Co., Í39 U. S.- 24; First National Bank v. National Exchange Bank, 92 U. S. 122.
State legislation, in definition of the powers of a national bank, necessarily conflicts with the regulations, express or implied, prescribed by Congress. Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.. S. 362; First National Bank v. California, supra.
State statutes defining the manner in which national banks shall exercise their franchises enjoyed from the general government are invalid because the sovereignty of the State does not so far extend to them. McCulloch v.. Maryland, supra; Osborn v. Bank of United States, supra.
Such a statute is the exercise of visitatorial power which pertains exclusively to Congress, and which Congress has, in terms, forbidden to state legislatures. Guthrie v. Harkness; 199 U. S. 148; Rev.- Stats., § 5241; c. 6, § 21, 38 Stat. 272.
III. The bank, in the exercise of its corporate functions, is not limited to a single building in the city in which it does business. Banking is a natural right, not a privilege. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 517; Bank of California v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276; Curtiss v. Leav-itt, 15 N. Y. 9.
Except as restrained by the legislature, a corporation may conduct its business at any point within the jurisdiction of the sovereign which gives it.being.. 2 Fletcher, Corporations, c. 21, § 806, and cases cited; Lloyd’s Trustees v. Lynchburg, 113 Va. 627.
The function hgre in- question is within the incidental powers of- a national bank unless forbidden by Congress. First National hank v. National Exchange Bank, 92 U. S. 122; Oreen Bay R. R. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co., 107 U.-S.98.
Revised Statutes, § 5134, deals only with the city, town ór village designated in the charter, and not with a place of business within the city, town or village. McCormick v. Market Bank, 162 Ill. 108; s. c. 165 U. S. 538.
Revised Statutes, J 5190, does not limit a national bank to a single office for the transaction of its business. Merchants’ Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604; Rev. Stats., § 5136; c. 290, 22 Stat. 162; Century Dictionary, article “ a ” or “ an ”; United States v. Oregon & California R. R. Co., 164 U. S. 526; United States v. Perry, 133 Fed. 841; National Union v. Copeland, 171 Mass. 257; State v. Martin, 60 Ark. 334; Commonwealth v. Watts, 84 Ky. 537.
IV. There has been no departmental construction which can be permitted to control the construction of the statute. Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U. S. 258; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265; Hahn v. United States, 107 U. S. 402; Swift Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 691; United States v. Graham, 110 U. S. 219; Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U. S. 542; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Kentucky,161 U. S. 677; Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 190.
V.' There, has been no binding congressional interpretation. Rev. Stats., §5155; c. 71, 27 Stat. 33; c. 864, § 21, 31 Stat. 1444; c. 156, 26 Stat. 62; Act of April 26, 1922, c. 147, 42 Stat. 400; Postmaster-General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546; Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes, (ed. 1888), § 372.
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, with whom Mr. George Ross Hull and Mr. Charles W. Collins were on the brief, for the United States, by special leave of Court, as amici curiae.
The National Bank Act vests in the Comptroller of the Currency power to supervise all the, operations of national banks, and specifically authorizes him to bring suit in the United States courts for the forfeiture of the charter of any national bank which violates any provision of the • act-and thus exceeds its corporate powers. Rev. Stats., § 5239. Revised Statutes, § 5240, as amended by the Federal Resérve Act, .§ 21/38 Stat. 271, intends that the Comptroller shall have the “ visitatorial ” power to enforce observance of the National Bank Act.
These proceedings are an obvious attempt to exercise visitatorial powers.
The United States alone may inquire by tyuo warranto whether a national bank, in operating as such, has acted in excess of its corporate powers.
The distinction between a pretended corporation and a legal corporation which misuses its franchise is clear; for the power to restrain the abuse of a corporate privilege is essentially visitatorial, and, to subject a federal instrumentality to the visitatorial powers of a State is to subject a federal instrumentality to the rule of two masters — and this, our system of government forbids. No other case has come to our attention wherein one sovereign has successfully attempted by quo warranto in its own courts to define -the limits of a franchise granted by another. Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, distinguished. This bank is in Missouri by the paramount authority of the United States. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.
The .ancient writ .of quo warranto was a high prerogative writ in the nature of a writ of right for the sovereign, against one who usurped or claimed any office, franchise, or liberty of the Crown, to inquire by what authority he claimed the right. 3'Black. Com., 262; High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3d ed., 544. The sovereign alone might inquire who should hold a franchise, how it should be exercised, when its limits had been exceeded, or when its exercise had been abandoned. The writ was a purely civil proceeding. In course of time it was superseded by the speedier remedy of an information in the nature of quo warranto. Territory v, Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236. This-proceeding was criminal in character and led to judgment, not only of ouster, but of a fine for the usurpation. Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270. In either proceeding, however, the king was the person aggrieved, and it was upon his initiative that the actions were, begun.
When our Republic was formed with a dual sovereignty, the Nation and the constituent States, each in their respective spheres, succeeded to this prerogative of the Crown. The question as to what authority may inquire into the exercise of a federal office or franchise is not entirely new in this Court. Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291; Territory v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236. And see State v. Curtis, 35 Conn. 374. The reasoning of these opinions seems clearly applicable to the case at bar and conclusive, upon the question óf the power of the State of Missouri. Indeed, no other authority seems required than McCul-loch v. Maryland.
National banks organized under the National Bank Act are instruments designed to be used to aid the Federal Government in the administration of its powers. Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738.
A state court cannot impede or suspend the operation of a federal instrumentality upon the ground that the act of Congress under which the instrumentality is operating is unconstitutional, or does not confer the power sought to be exercised, for it is not within the power of the State to stay-the operations of the Federal Government. Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397. The judicial, control of the agency is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257.
Many cases have arisen where persons held by the state authorities have been discharged by the federal courts on the ground that the act complained of was done under authority of the United States or the process of its courts, ■ and that the state court was, therefore, without jurisdiction. In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; United States v. Fullhart,. 47 Fed. 802; Ex parte Conway, 48 Fed. 77; Kelly v. Georgia, 68 Fed. 652; In re Waite, 81 Fed. 359; affd. 88 Fed. 102; In re Lewis, 83 Fed. 159; In re Thomas, 82 Fed. 304; affd. 87 Fed. 453; 173 U. S. 276; In re Weeks, 82-Fed. 729; In re Comingore', 96 Fed. 552; affd. 177 U. S. 459; In re Fair, 100 Fed. 149; Anderson v. Elliott, 10T Fed 609; United States v. Fuellhart, 106 Fed. 911; In re Turner, 119 Fed. 231; In re Matthews, 122 Fed. 248; In re Laing, 127 Fed. 213; Ex parte Gillette, 156 Fed. 65; Drury v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1; Hunter v. Woo<d, 209 U. S. 205; Pundt v. Pendleton, 167 Fed. 997. The principle clearly applies to national banks. McCulloch v. Maryland, supra.
Congress has vested no power in the state courts, by quo warranto or otherwise, to control the operations of national banks. On the contrary, it has expressly forbidden it. Act of July 12, 1882, c. 290, § 4, 22 Stat. 163; Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, .§4, 25 Stat. 436; Rev. Stats., § 5239; Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778; Petri v. Commercial Bank, 142 U. S. 644; Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148. ■
If the state law prescribes a penalty for the exercise of any power by a national bank which is not authorized by the laws of the United States, the national bank is not subject to such penalty. See Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29; Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 132; Schuyler National Bank v. Gadsden, 191 U. S. 451. '
To construe this Missouri statute as Vesting in the state courts the right to determine whether any business transacted by a national bank constitutes a violation of law, would bring it in direct conflict .with; § 5239, Rev. Stats., whióh vests this power in the Comptroller of the Currency to be exercised by suit in a United States court.
There is no analogy between Davis v. Elmira .Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, and McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. S.-347, and the present case. A different situation results where an act of Congress expressly authorizes a national bank to exercise a particular' power when the exercise of such power is “not in contravention of state or local law.” In such case the state court by quo warranto proceedings may' assume jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether the exercise of the power in question contravenes any-laws of the State. First National Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416.
Were this a case of first impression, there might be fair ground for argument whether, under §§ 5134 and 5190, Rev. Stats., it was intended to restrict a national bank-in “ its usual business ” to “ one banking house in any one place,” thereby meaning the geographical locality, whettkx city, town, or village, in which the national bank has been located. But this question does hot now ,seem to be open. For over fifty years the executive department of the Government has consistently held, as a matter of administration, that the/“usual business” of a banking association • must be transacted in a single and well-defined banking building; and ...this administrative construction of the law has additional.weight, not only because Congress has, by supplemental legislation, acquiesced in it by passing law's which, in exceptional instances, authorized branch banks, but also because the agitation for the right to have, branch banks has been carried on for many years, and Congress has refused*to authorize such branches. See 29 ..Ops. Atty. Gen. 81.
A branch bank, as the term is used in the National Bank Act, by the Attorney General and by the office of tiie Comptroller of the Currency, partakes of the. nature of a primary organization,; — in practical operations, a complete substitute for a local bank in .the locality which it serves. It is to many intents and purposes an additional bank under the same board of directors, closely associated with the parent bank, but operating in most matters independently.
Considering § 5190, Rev. Stats., in the light of this definition, the “ banking house ” is the legal domicile of the bank from which 'its 'discretionary powers are exercised and in which its policies are formulated and approved. If a national bank should attempt to establish and operate such a branch bank, such action could be treated by the Comptroller as a violation of § 5190. His remedy would be to bring suit in his own name for forfeiture of the charter. But the question remains, can a national bank transact no business, whatever beyond the four walls of its office building? May it not have “ service stations” for minor and routine purposes? If the answer is “ No,” how can it clear its checks in the clearing house? The words “ the usual business”, as used in this section, can.not be given a strictly literal interpretation. Much of the routine business of every bank must be transacted away from' the banking house. This has always been the case. The business of banking is continually in process of growth and adjustment.
This portion of-. §'5190, must, therefore, be construed in connection with that portion of § 5136, which provides that the board of directors may exercise all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking. _
In the light of modern banking practice a narrow and literal construction of § 5190 is unworkable. ‘ The construction must be made with the practical situation in mind.- Merchants’ Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604.
The operations of a national banking association may be divided into two general classes: (a) Those which must be performed by the board of directors; and (b) those which must be delegated to and performed by the officers, agents, or servants of the bank.
These powers may be again divided into those which require discretion, judgment, and banking experience, and those which are ministerial, clerical, , and of routine character.
The powers performed by the board of directors may •be déscribed as discretionary powers, while those performed by officers, agents, or servants may be referred b as ministerial powers.
The responsibility for the management and control of the affairs of the bank is definitely vested in the board of directors, and the. serviced performed by officers or agents must be performed under the direction of and by delegation of authority from the board of directors. This being true, the discretionary powers of the board can not be delegated and must, therefore, be exercised only at the banking house.
On the other hand, the actual receipts of deposits, payment or certification of checks, the actual payment of money on loans authorized by the board, and other purely ministerial acts, of necessity must be performed by officers or agents. These acts, while usually performed at the banking house, are sometimes necessarily performed by correspondents or agents elsewhere.
It reasonably follows that, if a national bank has the incidental power to perform these administrative functions through its agents or servants, acting when necessary outside of its banking house, the bank may also, if necessary, maintain an office or offices — as distinguished'from a branch — at a place other than its banking house.
To accommodate distant customers the need is strongly felt in many localities for the banks to maintain an office or offices at some distance from their banking houses fo. the purpose of receiving deposits and cashing checks. A new development in banking practice has thus been instituted in a number of cities by the state banks. The national banks must be allowed to compete or suffer a .serious loss in business and prestige. Did Congress contemplate a policy of unreasonable restriction, which might undermine the national banking system in the large centers of population?
[Counsel fully discussed the authority of the Comptroller,' citing Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U. S'. 258; Cook County Natl. Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445; Rev. Stats. § 5239; Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, c. 252, § 209a, 42 Stat. 1467.]
The Comptroller of the Currency has the right to determine, whether a national bank is maintaining a “ branch bank,” as distinguished from a “ branch office,”' and, if satisfied that the outside business office is essentially a “ branch bank,” he is authorized to proceed in the courts of law . to require such bank to abandon its branch under the penalty of a forfeiture of its charter.
. This administrative power, however, does not necessarily imply a discretionary power to permit one bank to have a branch office and to deny it to- another, or to permit one locality to have branch offices and to deny them to another. If a national bank may conduct its minor and routine operations, when necessary, beyond the walls of its place of business, it may be a right which the bank has as a part of its charter and not dependent upon any discretionary permission of the Comptroller. In this connection it is significant that the question of excesses of corporate power is to be determined in a judicial proceeding instituted by the Comptroller.
In any event the Comptroller, in his duty of compelling national banks to act within their corporate powers, has supervisory discretion; and this important duty emphasizes again the point, upon which the Government mainly relies, that a State may not, in a quo warranto proceeding, interfere with the exercise of such discretion.
Mr. Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Mr. Robert C. Morris and- Mr. Frederick W. Lehmann, with whom Mr. Harold R. Small, Mr. Merton E. Lewis, Mr. Sam B. Jeffries, Mr. William T. Jones and Mr. Marion C. Early were on the brief, for defendant in error. .
Branch banking by a national bank in the State of Missouri is conduct which either the national or state government has authority to stop, as such conduct is in excess of any authority from the Nation, is in contravention and defiance of the state law and is destructive of the law-abiding banks of the State. '
National banks exist by virtue of federal legislation and are federal agencies subject, in the first instance, to the authority of the United States and the laws under which they are created. Their powers are measured by the express. terms of the federal statutes relating to them and they can rightfully exercise only such powers or those incidental thereto which are necessary to carrying on the business for which they are created. Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S’. 67, 73. Under the provisions of Rev. Stats., § 5190, the usual business transactions of each national banking association are confined to one office or banking house. Exceptions to this general rule have been provided by statutes to meet the requirements of specific cases which do not include or comprehend the instant case. Rev. Stats., § 5155; Act May 12, 1892, c. 71, 27 Stat. 33, Act Mar. 3,1901, c. 864, § 21, 31 Stat. 1444.
National banks are also subject to the laws of a State in respect to. their affairs unless such laws conflict with federal laws or interfere with the purposes of their creation and tend to impair or destroy their efficiency as federal agencies. There is no conflict between the United States statutes and the laws of Missouri, and as the law is administered in Missouri, national and state banks are on an equal footing, neither having an advantage over the other.
The Missouri banking law provides that no bank shall maintain within the State a branch bank or receive deposits or pay checks except in its own banking house. R. S. Mo. 1919, § 11737. The Supreme Court of Missouri has construed this statute to mean that a bank’s banking business shall be conducted in one banking house only. 29*7 Mo. 397.
A national bank has no authority under its charter to establish a branch or coordinate office for the purpose of carrying on a general banking business in thé place designated in its certificate of organization. Neither do the federal statutes permit expressly or by implication a national bank tq have domestic branches. This construction of the federal statutes relating to national banking associations has been, uniformly supported by the executive officers and departments charged wjth the administration of the law. Rev. Stats., § 5155, amended, 1913, by' §. 8, Federal Reserve Act; Instructions of the Comptroller of the Treasury for 1923 under the heading of “ Branch Banks; ” 29 Ops. Atty. Gen. 81, 97; Op. Atty. Gen., Oct. 3,1923.
The State, when its action is not in conflict with national law, can suppress unauthorized and unlawful conduct of a national bank within the State. The present case is-not within the provisions of the Judicial Code or the Revised Statutes giving original or exclusive jurisdiction to the United States courts in certain actions and proceedings concerning national banking associations. Herrmann v. Edwards, '238 U. S. 107.
The State of Missouri in the proper exercise of its police powers has the right to suppress a wholly unauthorized, and unlawful, act in the State. Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U.S. 148. .
A proceeding in the nature of quo warranto is the appropriate remedy and means to question and stop unau thorized and unlawful conduct of a national bank in the State of Missouri. Standard Oil Co., v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270; First National Bank v. Fellows, 244 TL S. 416.
It is plain from the history of the National Bank Act" that there was no purpose at any time to confer upon national banks generally the power to establish and operate branches in the cities in which they were respectively located. Where by reason of peculiar circumstances such branch banks were thought proper, express provision was made fof them, as was also done in the case of foreign branches. These exceptional instances, expressly provided for, make stronger the implication against branch banks generally. If branch banks are to become a regular feature of our banking system, it should be only as a consequence of ah express grant of such power and until such grant is made national banks should not be permitted to put into practical effect a system of banking prohibited by the laws of the State and the Nation.
Messrs. Herman L. Ekern, Clifford. L. Hiltori, Ulysses S. Lesh, Benjamin J. Gibson, Edward -J. Brundage, H. H. Cluff, Milton J. Helmiclc, George F. Shafer, J. S. Utley, O, S. Stillman, Charles B. Griffith, Frank E. Healy, David J. Howell, E. T. England, Thomas B. McGregor,, George . T. Short, Buell F. Jones and John H. Dunbar, Attorneys General, respectively, of the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, Connecticut, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Washington, by leave of Court, filed a brief as amici curiae.
The case was argued, at the first hearing, on behalf of plaintiff in error, by Mr. Sullivan. Messrs. Jones, Hocker, Angert and Hughes were also with hinji on the brief. '
The ease was argued, at. the first hearing, on behalf of' defendant in error, by Mr. Merrill E. Otis and Mr. Harold R. Small. Messrs. Barrett, Jeffries, Jones and Early, and Mr. Edward W. Foristel were also with them on the brief.
By leave of Court, briefs were also filed, at the first hearing, by the Attorneys General of the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, Connecticut, South Dakota and Washington, and by Mr. William Rothmann; by Mr. John A. Garver, on behalf of the National City Bank of New York and The Chemical National Bank of New York; and by Mr. John Quinn, Mr. -Paul Kieffer and Mr. Robert P. Stewart, on behalf of The National Bank of Commerce in New York, as amici curiae.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Sutherland
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Missouri brought this proceeding in' the nature of quo warranto in the State Supreme Court against the plaintiff in error to determine its authority to establish' and conduct a branch bank in the City of St. Louis. The information avers that the bank was organized under the laws of the United States and was and is engaged in a general banking business in that city at a banking house, .the location of which is given; that, in contravention of its charter and of the act of Congress under which it was incorporated, it has illegally opened and is operating a branch bank for doing a general banking business in a separate building several blocks from its banking house, and proposes to open additional branch banks at various other locations, and that this is in vidlation of a statute of the State expressly prohibiting the establishment of. branch banks. The prayer is that, upon final hearing, the bank be ousted from the privilege of operating this branch bank or any other. A demurrer to the information was interposed and the cause thereupon submitted. The contention of the State was upheld and judgment rendered in accordance with the prayer. 297 Mo. 397.
The correctness of the judgment is challenged under numerous specifications of error presenting federal questions, which, for the purposes of the case, may be considered under two heads: (1) Whether the state statute is valid as applied to national banks; and (2) Whether a proceeding to call a national bank to account for acts of the kind here alleged may be maintained by the State, and whether the form of remedy pursued is sustainable.
First-. The Missouri statute (§ 11737, R: S. Mo., 1919) provides " that no bank shall maintain in this state a branch bank or receive deposits or pay checks except in its own banking house." That the facts alleged in the in formation bring the case within that part of the statute which prohibits the maintenance of branch banks and that the statute applies to national banks is conclusively established by the decision of the state court, and we confine ourselves to the inquiry whether, as thus applied, the statute is valid. .
National banks are brought into existence under federal legislation, are instrumentalities of the Federal Government' and are necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States. Nevertheless, national banks are subject to the laws of a State in respect of their affairs unless such laws interfere with the purposes of their creation, tend to impair or destroy their efficiency as federal agencies or conflict with the paramount law of the United States. National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, 362; Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 283. These two cases are cited, and followed in the later case of McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. S. 347, 357, and the principle which they establish is said to contain a rule and an exception, " the. rule being the operation of general state laws upon the dealings' and contracts of national banks, the exception being the cessation of the operation of such laws whenever they expressly conflict with the laws of the United States or frustrate the purpose for which national banks were created, or impair their efficiency to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the law of the United States." See also Waite v. Dowley, 94 U. S. 527, 533. The question is whether the Missouri statute falls within the rule or within the exception.
Does it conflict with the laws of the United States? In our opinion, it does not. The extent of the powers of national banks is to be measured by the terms of the federal statutes relating to such associations, and they can rightfully exercise only such as are expressly granted or such incidental- powers as are necessary to carry on the business for which they are established. Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589, 593; Logan County National Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 73; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 366. Among other things the federal law (Rev. Stat., § 5134) provides that the organization certificate of the association shall specifically state "the place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on, designating the State, Territory, or district, and the particular county, city, town, or village." By another provision (Rev. Stats. § 5190) it is required that " the usual business of each national banking association shall be transacted at an office or banking-house located in the place specified in its organization certificate." Strictly, the latter provision, employing, as it does, the article " an," to qualify words in the singular number, would confine the association to one office or banking house. We are asked, however, to construe it otherwise in view of the rule that " words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things." Rev. Stats., § i. But obviously this rule is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute. See Garrigus v. Board of Commissioners, 39 Ind. 66, 70; Moynahan v. City of New York, 205 N. Y. 181, 186. Here there is not only nothing in the context or in the subject matter to réquire the construction contended for, but other provisions of the national banking laws are persuasively to the contrary. By § 5138, Rev. Stats., the minimum amount of capital is fixed in proportion to the population of the place-where the bank is located. If it had been intended to allow the establishment by an association of not one bank only but, in addition, as .many, branch banks as it saw fit, it is remarkable, to say the least, that there should have been no provision for adjusting the capital to the latter contingency or for determining how or under what circumstances such branch banks might be established or for regulating them. Section 5155, Rev. Stats., provides that it shall be lawful for a stat bank "having branches, the capital being joint and as- ' signed to and used by the mother-bank and branchés in definite proportions, to become a national banking association . . . and to retain and keep in operation its branches . . . the amount of the circulation . . . to be regulated by the amount of capital assigned to and used by each." This provision, confined by its terms, as it is, to existing state institutions, may be fairly considered as constituting an exception to the general rule, and the presence of safeguarding limitations in the excepted case, with their entire absence from the statute otherwise, goes far in the direction of confirming the conclusion that the general rule does not contemplate, the establishment of branch banks. This apparently was the interpretation of Congress itself, since in two instances at least special legislation was deemed necessary to allow the establishment of branch banks, viz: at the Chicago Exposition, in 1892, c. 71, 27 Stat. 33, and at the St. Louis Exposition, in 1901, c. 864, 31 Stat. 1444, § 21, the existence of the branch bank in each instance being expressly limited to the period of two years.
The construction of the executive officers charged with the administration of the law has been, with substantial uniformity, to the same effect, apd in this view the Department of Justice, in a well considered opinion, rendered May 11,1911-, concurred. Lowry National Bank — Establishment of Branches. 29 Ops. Atty. Gen. 81.
This interpretation of the statute by the legislative department and by the executive officers of the government would go far to remove doubt as to its meaning if any existed. See Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 309; United States v. Hermanos y Compañia, 209 U. S. 337, 339.
But is is said that the establishment of a branch bank is the exercise of an incidental power conferred by § 5136, Rev. Stats., by which national banicing associations are vested with " all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking." The mere multiplication of places where the powers of a bank may be exercised is not, in our opinion, a necessary incident of • a banking business, within the meaning of this provision. Moreover, the reasons adduced against the existence of the power substantively are conclusive against its existence incidentally; for it is wholly illogical to say that a power which by fair construction of the statutes is found to be denied, nevertheless exists as an incidental power. Certainly an incidental power can avail neither to create powers which, expressly or by reasonable implication, are withheld nor to enlarge powers given; but only to carry into effect those which are granted.
Clearly, the state statute, by prohibiting branches, does not frustrate the purpose for which the bank was created or interfere with the discharge, of its duties to the government or impair-its efficiency as a federal agency; This conclusion would seem to be self evident, but if warrant for it be needed, it sufficiently lies in the fact that national banking associations have gone on for more than half a century without branches and upon the theory of an absence of authority to establish them. If the non-existence of such branches or the absence of power to create them has operated or is calculated to operate to the detriment of the government, or in such manner as to interfere with the ' efficiency of such associations as federal agencies, or to frustrate their purposes, it is inconceivable that the fact would not long since have been discovered and steps taken by Congress to remedy the omission.
Second.- The state statute as applied to national banks is, therefor*, valid, and the corollary that it. is obligatory and enforceable necessarily results, unless some controlling reason forbids; and, since the sanction behind it is that of the State and not that of the National Government, the power of enforcement must rest with the former and not with the latter. To demonstrate the binding quality'of a statute but deny the power of-enforcement involves a fallacy made apparent by the mere statement of the proposition, for such power is essentially' inherent in the very conception of law. It is insisted with great earnestness that the United States alone may inquire by quo warranto whether a national bank is acting in excess of its charter powers, and that the State is wholly without authority to do- so. This contention will be conceded since it is plainly correct, but the attempt to apply it here proceeds upon a complete- misconception of what the-State • is seeking -to do, a misconception which arises from confounding the relief -sought with the circumstances relied úpon to justify it. The State is neither seeking to enforce a law of the United States nor endeavoring to call the bank to account for an act in excess of its charter powers. What the State is seeking to do is to vindicate and enforce its own law, and the ultimate inquiry which it propounds is whether the bank is violating that law, not whether it is complying with the charter or law of its creation. The latter inquiry is preliminary and collateral, made only for the purpose of determining whether the state law is free to act in the premises or whether its operation is precluded in the particular casé by paramount law. Having determined that the power sought to be exercised by the bank finds no justification in any law or authority of the United States, the way is open for the enforcement of the state statute. In other words, the national statutes are interrogated for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether anything they contain constitutes an impediment to the enforcement of the state statute, and the answer being in the negative, they may be laid aside as ¡.of no further concern.
The application of the state statute to the present case and the power of the State to enforce it being established, the nature of the remedy to be employed is a question for state determination; and the judgment of the state court that the one here employed was appropriate is conclusive unless it involves a denial of due process of law, which plainly it does not. We are riot concerned with the question whether an information in the nature of quo war-ranto, according to the general principles of the law, is in fact appropriate. It is enough that the Supreme Court of the State has so held. Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 287; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 110-111. In Iowa Central Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393, this Court said: " But it is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way undertakes to control the power of a State to determine by what process legal rights may be asserted or legal obligations be enforced, provided the method of procedure adopted for these purposes gives reasonable notice and affords fair opportunity to.be heard before the issues are decided. This being the case, it was . obviously not a right, privilege, or immunity of a citizen of the United States to have a controyersy in 'the state court prosecuted or determined by one form of action instead of by another. . . . Whether the court of last resort of the State of Iowa properly construed its own constitution and laws in determining that the summary process under those laws was applicable to the matter which it adjudged, was purely the decision of a question of state law, binding upon this court." See also Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 236; Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U. S. 314, 318; Rogers v. Peck, 199 U. S. 425, 435.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is therefore
Affirmed-''
Our attention is directed to a later opinion of the Attorney General, dated October 3, 1923, which, although in terms affirniing the earlier opinion, announces a limited rule which does not seem to be in precise agreement with it. To the extent of the disagreement, however, we accent the view of the earlier opinion.