*1 480, 533. There S.D. appellants’ nothing evident in the record to color the trial court’s determination
brief proper. The fact that
as other than appellants’ wishes can-
court did not follow an abuse of discretion.
not be considered fact, reports
In social service recom- parental rights if
mended termination present.
the court found child abuse was present, the court found abuse was
Since was in accordance with the
determination
report.3 appellants have in their brief thought various matters
discussed consti However, there
tute reversible error. were objections at trial offered to those mat they assigned not
ters and were as error. such, they
As are not reviewable.
Affirmed.
All the concur. Justices
Application of the LIVE STOCK STATE
BANK, ARTESIAN, South Mitchell,
move its Main Office to South
Dakota and Establish a Branch Bank Artesian, South Dakota.
Nos. 11885.
Supreme Court of Dakota.
Argued Nov. April
Decided ty psychological express 3. The on the evaluation to control and frustative tensions performance suitably way, disclosed “neither individual’s realistic which was reflected * * maladjustment was indicative of responses.” extreme [S.J.Z.’s mother’s] only discrepant capaci- score was a [t]he lower *2 Johnson, Gen., for Atty.
R. Van Asst. Commission; appellant, Banking Wil- State Janklow, Pierre, Gen., on Atty. liam J. brief. Adam, Gerdes, Porter, May, A.
David Pierre, for contestant Thompson, & Gerdes and respondent, and Commercial Trust Sav- ings Bank.
DUNN, Chief Justice. July
On Live Stock State Bank Stock) (Livе applied to the of Artesian (the Banking Commission Commis- State sion) permission move its main office for and establish a from Artesian to Mitchell matter was branch bank in Artesian. The by the on November 19 heard Commission 20, 1974, and on and December 23, 1975, approved May On Commission change establishment of оf location and Commercial Trust bank. The branch (Commercial) Savings of Mitchell Bank appealed the decision to the Judicial Sixth five It raised issues Circuit Court. They peal. were: (1) without That the Commission was a jurisdiction authority or to allow of a bank charter of location for beyond thе town or which originally the charter was issued. (2) applicant was in effect That what doing establishing was a branch bank purchasing in Mitchell without merging existing with one of the banks, prohibited which is law. (3) applicant to establish That the failed evidence a “need” substantial of Mitchell for additional inadеquacy banking facilities or the banking facilities. existing although (4) applicant, ade- That quately capitalized for its to establish banking authority, failed it met substantial evidence capitalization proposed in its the new application.
(5)
decision
That
the Commission’s
Knudson,
Piersol,
majority
L.
Lаwrence J.
David
not concurred in
Davenport, Evans,
Smith,
been
Hurwitz &
who had
Falls,
appellant,
see
hear all the wit-
applicant
person
Sioux
nesses,
Live Stock
Bank.
and thus denies the contest-
procedural
ant substantive
due must
“the authority
employ
include
process.
means necessary for the exercise of that
power.”
Carter, 1975,
Board of Regents v.
in its Memorandum
The trial court
Deci-
S.D.,
gives
629. It also
16,1976,
January
sion of
ruled it would not
power to
upon applications
act
judgment
for that of
substitute
other than those enumerated in SDCL 51-
(4).
Commission on issues
Addition-
*3
16-15.
express
rule of
mention and
“[T]he
disagreed
the court
with
ally,
implied exclusion should
applied
never be
to
branching” argument
(2),
“reverse
issue
plain legislative
defeat a
purpose.” Rehu
holding
application clearly
Live Stock’s
in-
rek Rapid City,
v.
65 S.D.
275
dicated the main office would be in Mitch-
N.W. 859. If the Commission does nоt have
did, however,
court
ell. The
hold that
the
power
location,
the
to supervise
change
a
in
authority
ap-
Commission was without
to
banks,
chartered,
once
would be free to
Mitchell,
(1).
prove the bank’s move to
issue
move without
restriction.
See:
ex
application
was reversed and remanded
Holt, 1941,
Bank of
rel.
Nashua v.
to the
it
348 Mo.
directions
982,
We would affirm the Commis and the state bank findings (2), Application Rhame, sion’s and trial court’s on issues board. of Bank of (4) 1975, N.D., 801; findings and set out above. These 231 Broadway N.W.2d Na fully supported by are the Bank, 1970, evidence. As to tional Bank v. Linwood State (5), appears quorum Mo., 296; issue it that a 456 City S.W.2d National Bank of hearings Commission was at all Falkner, 1968, v. Tex.Civ.App., Austin joined the full Commission in the deci 429. Unfortunately, S.W.2d we do not have sion. appeal by While there was no Com specific such a in statute South Dakota’s mercial, we nevertheless find that the Com banking only laws. The pow mention of a process mission did afford due in its hear regulate er to a change bank’s in location is ings parties for all concerned. 17-21, SDCL which states: 51 - “A may amend its articles of incor-
Live Stock contends that poration provided in the manner under give intended to the Commission in SDCL 47-2, chaptеr upon amendment certified authority comprehensively Title 51 the to president, its except prior approv- regulate banking banking structure and required al of the director shall be practice. authority The Commission’s location; change bank to: its name or approve the transfer of main office of a acquire or powers; change abandon trust city, chartered bank to another town or claims, par Live the number or value of its of Stock should be viewed as an shares stock; implied power change or, regulatory capital; under this amount оf scheme. responds corporate Commercial that without extend its existence. Such specific a authorizing proval upon statute the Commis- must finding be based a sion to security such a transfer Live of Stock creditors will not only can move to Mitchell establishing impaired be actiоn. All branch bank there. such amendments shall be filed in the provided original same manner as ar- SDCL 51-16-1 establishes division of incorporation.” ticles of finance, banking charges it “with super- Although Live vision and control Stock’s was not over the activities set title,” grants attempt forth in labeled an to amеnd jurisdiction this it its articles of incorporation, over practical “such other activities as shall be con- that was its effect. upon Legislature.” ferred it To amend its articles under This SDCL 51-17- grant power banking proceed broad of over the a bank must in the manner effective, industry in provided аmending be in 47-2 for SDCL supervisory necessary discharge duties corpo- of a business incorporation of articles prior approv- of location. approving obtain the in ration, it must banking of the division of the director al in his and recommen- The director in provides 47-2-8 SDCL and finance. 29, 1974, рursuant November dation dated part: 17—15, part: in stated SDCL 51— articles may amend its corporation “A economic that under normal appears “It time, from time to incorporation, deposits would be sufficient conditions as many respects any and as earnings generat- and favorable obtained incorpo- desired, as its articles of long so financial insti- support an additional ed to pro- such contain ration as amended Mitchell, particular this however tution lawfully be contained in might visions as suffering apparently area incorporation at the original articles the area farmers drought many * *.” making such amendment time of crop of a only about a half experienced *4 * * * Although proposed the 1974. original of a bank’s Among provisions the of the main Mitchell busi- location outside proposed the lo- incorporation is articles of be more convenient ness district would 51-17-1; SDCL cation of the bank. SDCL individuals in the businesses and some impor- is also an 47-2-5(10). The location area, being now appears it that both are investigated examined to be tant factor by the finan- adequately served application for a chаr- upon the director nearby in Mitchell and cial institutions ter, 51-17-15, the Commis- SDCL communities. making upon applica- its decision an sion in “Overall, are no clear-cut favorable there 51-17-16; tion, Bank of Valley State SDCL in the of need at the aspects factor Canton, Bank of v. Farmers State Canton time, so an UNFAVORABLE 87 S.D. indicated.” recommendation is reasoning adopt To by the report was considered Com This any bank forever foreclose this would case mission, approve or which has discretion a new loca moving its main office to from 51 — 17—16. disapprove applicatiоns. SDCL agree. we cannot We feel this tion. With Ridge Bank v. State Bank also: Blue See main office of a that the movement Board, 1974, Mo.App., 509 S.W.2d be considered new should bank to a above, 51-17-21 re As noted SDCL same care and with the the Commission approval prior quires the director’s new chаrter issuance of a standards as the incorporation for a amending the articles have the same Live should and that Stock ap change its location. While it bank to new applicant as an proof burden of time of his the director at the pears token, the same Live Stock By charter. approval, a third report did not recommend moving its should not be foreclosed held, hearings signed and he the day of was it a new location where main charter Fact, Findings of Conclusions Commission’s proof as would an maintains its burden of Findings, Law, Ruling Proposed effect, this charter. In applicant for a new Law the Decision. One of Conclusions charter in Mitch is an for a new application proposed by the issues SDCL stated ell, the and we feel investi (upon which the director’s 51-17-15 considering Commission was correct in so based) be examination are to gation and Thus, the application. the we hold that in Live favor. been resolved Stock’s had of a bank from of the location contrary can the we evidence to Without original articles of appearing location in the joined in the Com only the director assume accomрlished by incorporation can approval. mission’s 51-17- fulfilling requirements of SDCL trial court moved before the Commercial sections were through 51-17-16. These be- the case to the Commission here, to remand complied with and the Commission from the di- cause, according to a letter powers acted reasonable within the Stock, rector to Live average Commission’s cated demand for proval credit, of Live Stock’s was sub- potential number of de- ject approval by the Federal Deposit positors, the volume of bank trans- court, Corporation. actiоns, Insurance The trial be- and the business and indus- decision, of its cause did not rule on this community, tries of the partic- record, issue. From the exhibits in the it regard ular stability, for their diver- size; approval not clear whether the FDIC was sification and remand, therefore, ever obtained. On (d)If the bank is to exerсise trust court should consider whether the Commis- powers, the opportunities profit- approval sion’s final was obtained. If it able employment of serv- fiduciary was, not, approval upheld; should be if ices. the case should be remanded to the Com- other Such facts and circumstanсes mission. bearing on the bank and Reversed and remanded. community relation to the as in opinion of the director or the ZASTROW, JJ., WOLLMAN and concur. commission be relevant.” RAMYNKE, thorough weighing After a Judge, Circuit dissents. and examina- tion of the director’s and all other RAMYNKE, Judge, Circuit appoint- information, available relevant the Commis- who, place ed to sit in of Justice Winans sion shall then disapprove the time orally argued, this case was was a application. In upholding right *5 member of the Court. Banking moving to MORGAN, JJ., having PORTER and not of a bank chartered in one to a location been members of the Cоurt the time this city, majority opinion another states orally argued, participate. case was not did adopt reasoning in this “[t]o any case would forever foreclose bank from RAMYNKE, Judge (dissenting). Circuit moving its main office to a new location.” When there is an for a char- proper interpretation I feel that is the of bank, ter for legislature a new in SDCL the legislature law of the case. When the complete 51—17—15sets out require- goes lengths to such to set out all of the investigation ments that must be considerations that must be met before a reported made the director аnd to the may charter be issued for a to new bank Commission. This includes: open community, its doors in a new how can “(4) The need in the community where that, possibly say determining we after the bank would be located for bank- community banking facility, need in a banking facilities, and trust by implication (since in the nowhere law is banking or additional or banking stated) expressly may 'this the bank now trust facilities as the case place move from the where its charter was be, giving particular consideration granted having any study without or inves- adequacy existing to the tigation required by the or the director and trust facilities in the communi- Banking Commission as to the effects on ty- community taking away its bank? ability The of the community sup- to According majority opinion, only to the bank, port the proposed giving con- standards for the issuance of a new charter sideration to: met; words, must be in other if the Com- (a) The competition offered ex- mission determines that there is a need for banks; isting banking facility city, a new in one then the (b) banking history The of the com- fact that a with an bank needs munity; facility will not be considered if the (c) opportunities profitable facility for Although wishes to move. in this employment particulаr of bank funds as indi- case the small town of Artesian 232 without bank as the another and the be left decision circuit court will not there, a branch bank refusing
proposal is to establish to allow that move af- should be necessarily going this, however, to be is not firmed. The small towns instances.
the case in аll struggling keep are Dakota cases, and, if, many there
alive as and that bank decides
one bank in the town larger to be made in a profit is more
there absolutely protection
city, there is have its
that small town to needs even
considered under this rule—if the another large support town can bank that is The PEOPLE of the State of South Dakota investigation needs go. as far as the M., alleged D. in the Interest оf C. and B. dependent neglected children. It is inconceivable result. If it would intend such a had felt it No. 11708. giving implied consent to an allow Supreme Court South Dakota. charter banks to their from one move town another, certainly up it would have set Argued Jan. investigation and standards for examina- April Decided impact tion of the town which tois facility, banking lose as well as for the gain
one will one. which
This court held in Livestock State Bank Commission, Banking
v. S.D. a rule of N.W.2d the State attempting
Banking put into policy banking
effect a on branch which
was not written the law legisla- into
ture was The court specifically invalid.
stated: legislature
“The acts of our to be exam- policy
ined for such broad standards guide applicable here Commission above, and nothing
are as stated there is indicating that the legislature
therein the rules to
contemplated adopted management for ‘the administration banks’ should ex- operation
tend of bank beyond the area
as contrasted to bank location.” 80 S.D. at 141.
It is until my opinion legislature
specifically authorizes movement of a
bank’s charter one to another guidelines for such a definite move
there is implication any per- such contemplated
mission legisla-
ture.
The Banking has not been
granted authority by the to al-
low a chartered in one to move to