*1 (1969) doing and au business. It the builder’s see, 25 A.L.R.3d to drilling said in Hum convey therein. As to his contractor the terms cited thorities at Morton, supra any agreement he wishes to If v. make. he ber [426 S.W.2d] applied to new rule a contract which conditions emptor to make ‘The caveat wants patently out of production, upon discovery is an anachronism he payment houses buying prac home way modern harmony protect do that a which will him can and, time, does a disservice tices. the same make his wishes prudent purchaser ordinary gives to the driller. This the driller known lending encouragement industry itself reject opportunity accept the con- fly-by-night operator unscrupulous, is, The companion concept offer. tractor’s ” shoddy work.’ purveyor of Moore, Terry supra, held in we have may not the builder fail make his builder-third-party court denied known expectations rely, driller and against the water-well plaintiff’s complaint instead, upon theory implied warran- warranty with implied breach of driller for where the those situations driller has ty in comment: representations which have been of a build- expectations “. . The by the contractor. relied the work of who subcontracts er-vendor entirely well are different from drilling a For the reasons and under the au prospective of a home expectations herein, thority out the implied warranty set ” . . . purchaser. protects pur doctrine of fitness buys when he his home from the chaser they are. The difference is this: Indeed does not come to the rescue of the builder rejecting emp- the doctrine of caveat In who, with presumed experience builder buying of home we said in in the field tor himself, protect allows him to Tavares, supra: wants, having knowledge full of what he ordinary buyer home “. . The . needs, expects, contracts with another training, by skill or position, not in drilling of water well. lurking plumbing, defects discover itself, Affirmed. wiring, structure electrical usually up covered and not of which is inspection. open for place buyer
“A should be able to home developer who on the builder or
reliance . him new house.
sells ought implicit to be an under-
“It standing when FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF paid price is home is agreed THERMOPOLIS, Appellant purpose for which reasonably fit for the (Plaintiff below), reasonably it is fit it is to be used —that . . . There for habitation. BONHAM, Dwight Wyoming State Bank subjected buyer need for Examiner, and First State Bank Ther caused defects and de- harassment mopolis Organizers Proposed of the law and its con- the focus serves ” and Directors in their official Officers . . cern. . (Defendants below). capacity, Appellees pro- same reasons do not serve to These No. 4640. of homes who hires well- builder tect either has the The home builder driller. Supreme Wyoming. Court of having the knowledge chargeable or is 20, 1977. Jan. knowledge through which will enable him arrangement to make whatever agreement They water-well driller. wants with the part and this is a in business
are both
then to re-open on a more scope September narrow limited on 24, 1974.” 4.“Whether the findings of fact and order issued final Examiner on *3 5,1974, supported were December sub- stantial evidence record.” Kunz, first three issues will be to- Brent R. Hatha- The discussed and Speight Jack Kunz, because of their Cheyenne, signed gether interrelationship. & way, Speight oral for bank appeared applicants charter have R. Kunz The raised Brent and brief respect question with to their motion to appellant. for argument for review in petition the dis- dismiss Everall, Stephen Eason and G. L. Richard We will point trict court. discuss that last Denver, Malone, Eason, & Simon, Hoyt by the and abide district court’s decision in Colo., Richard Ea- the brief and L. signed regard. argument ap- for appeared oral son River, Ragsdale, & Green Marty pellees; the close of the evidence at At the first Wyoming counsel. hearing the brief as the application, were on on the evidence of applicants protestant, and as to one J., GUTHRIE, C. and McCLIN- Before for phase related need another bank ROSE, RAPER, and JJ. TOCK, THOMAS acutely Thermopolis, divided. While advisement, because of under the wide dif- RAPER, Justice. ference, examiner notified the state examiner an order From that: parties to the First Bank State charter granting has been found that: evidence “[I]t applicants-appellees, Thermopolis, presented con- ‘need and protes- Thermopolis, Bank of First National venience’ and feasibility’ ‘economic is in- in Hot and bank tant-appellant conclusive; findings the investigation petitioned the court County, district Springs by the sharply State Examiner contrast review, which affirmed the examiner. during public with evidence received We this court. appeals now Protestant ** 5, 1974; hearing of March *. presented by The issues as will affirm. Examiner has “The State therefore re- appellant are: case to the manded the Senior Bank Ex- deprived the Examiner 1. “Whether for more extensive investigation. aminer hearing proc- due fair and Protestant anticipated that the hearing remanding the case to the law in ess of ** reopened will be at a later date evi- Examiner further Bank Senior added.) (Emphasis duties, finding then dentiary and fact and protestant exception The took to that ac- re-opening hearing to receive the tion, urging that if the evidence incon- acquired during the Bank Senior evidence clusive, applicants had failed in their investigation.” Examiner’s proof application should be denied. the Examiner deprived 2. “Whether investigation proceeded. The further proc- fair and due Protestant limiting scope ess law cross- independent inquiry a sub- The disclosed and rebuttal evidence at examination support stantial need and for an re-hearing.” September arising prevailing bank out of a additional banks, the Examiner au- legal 3. “Whether use citizens out-of-town local thority expanding economy. at the of the initial conclusion as well as report the bank charter the senior on examiner submitted 5, 1974, containing the newly-ac- on March remand case bank examiner parties quired Bank Examiner for further in- the Senior duties, evidentiary and fact that: finding formed them communication, receipt “Upon of this in- form is challenged. There is found twenty (20) have within those days findings, terested the real reason and justification letter receipt of this in which to examiner’s need of the investigation intent to further give present notice of evidence its application. pointed He out that while the in rebuttal to the information contained including the first hearing carried the request in said memorandum or to re- * * *” applicants burden of the if accepted at face opening “ * * * value, he, alarmed the diver- again objected protestant fur- gent conflicting nature of the testimo- hearing, claiming ther ny given by apparently reliable witnesses applicants must find failed in their concerning the volume of banking business proof deny application. Prior being conducted in out-of-town banks con- requested to the further then sidered the resolution of this conflict of *4 protestant, noticed testimony was vital to a just fair and deci- that he would limit the evidence to “that interest, sion in the not only with directly which will support or rebut specific to the respect evidence in question gathered by additional data the Senior also as affected the credibility of the Examiner.” Bank respect witnesses testimony other hearing, At the the senior bank examiner received from the same sources.”1 cross-examination, asked on was “What findings explain just how the exam- data was possibly perti- other considered as iner utilized the results of the further inves- The examiner objec- nent?" sustained an tigation which he independently ordered to question that the was scope tion outside the be member of his staff: and of confined cross to the “A substantial volume of business and “accuracy report.” of what is in the By deposits individual demand are now leav- expert witness, protestant’s accuracy of ing by way of deposit bank newly-gathered the senior examiner’s placed with accounts banks located in disputed. was The examiner Surveys by Ap- other communities. by protestant refused evidence offered that plicants and the testimony of witnesses at went outside the limitation imposed. The hearing of March 1974 reflect a protestant asserted that when the evidence higher much volume of such out-of-town reopened, that meant a new bank accounts than does the survey check respects every purpose. witnesses, Protestant of which suggests examiner, following the supplemen- (10%)percent that less than ten of Ther- tal made and findings, entered his mopolis citizens have established demand conclusions and order granting charter. accounts with banks other than the First they have observed been meticulous- Thermopolis. National Bank at Respons- drawn, fully ly justifying the examiner’s Examiner’s es to State initial field leaving and no doubt why action as to questionnaire investigation suggests [sic] granted. Their adequacy charter was as to discrepancy in testimony was explain: 1. The Order on to went Thermopolis, business of outside and with the further instructions that an extensive sur- being charged “The State Examiner with the vey (2) mail duty and at inquiring least two sur- affecting check into the factors veys by public utility serving Thermop- firms granting engage of a charter to surveys banking Wyoming olis be obtained. The results of being business in and judge submitted to the State Examiner sole as to whether a charter shall Senior be Examiner, granted, duty Mcllhenny, responsibility Bank clearly deemed it his Kenneth H. clarify specific support credibility question. to cordingly, area in Ac- of witnesses testimony the State Examiner remanded the received in the 5, 1974,by revealing portion case back Senior Bank Examiner with March that a investiga- population Thermopolis instructions to conduct a further the Springs County and Hot degree tion into the matter of the to which maintain bank accounts Thermopolis Springs County banks, and Hot accounting busi- two or more thus banking nesses and residents conduct their apparent testimony.” conflict Thermopolis citi- tion ex practice important of his role has been due maintaining both local out-of- by this court. His decision comes pressed zens suggested This ex- accounts. presumption legality bank with a town this court further verified investi- planation not substitute our validity; by the Senior Bank Ex- his; gation conducted he has been entrusted judgment at the instruction State aminer as the sole legislature as to supports finding Examiner granted, charter shall bank whether testimony were correct. both sources judgment cannot set aside his un and we nearly ninety that while is so in This arbitrary, less his decision fraudulent or Thermopolis (90%) residents percent is upon complainant illegal; the burden do maintain bank accounts businesses an abuse. to show such Bancor Bank Thermopo- National the First Bonham, poration Wyo.1974, persons these many of also maintain lis The state examiner been most with banks in other towns accounts bank here and has earned trust. cautious volume of out-of-town bank- that the statutory obligation imposed A special is substantial and sufficient ing business investigate, amongst the examiner to projections of the support Appli- responsibilities, char- cants.” 13-44(c) provides tering of banks. Section if further hear- urges that Protestant that, “It be the of the state shall * * * all, be a be held it must was to into the con- inquire examiner to *5 rehearing on all the issues sub- complete the to be needs of venience and * * original hearing and 13- § mitted ordinary Given served W.S.1957, gives 44(c), Cum.Supp.,2 1975 no phrase inquire “to into” meaning, the inquiry a further nor authority to make investigate, to to seek for truth or means Administrative Proce- Wyoming the by questioning. See Webster. Act, hearings before the under dure statutory is restriction on whether There We note that are conducted. the examiner before, job investigative place takes dur- subject is is silent on the the cited section ing presented by ap- the or after evidence Procedure Act. Administrative protestant. is plicants long and As as it gained responsibility secretly, the information done A considerable recogni- oppor- A the an state examiner. available to and placed upon the approval 13-44(c) Upon provides: the this state. the certifi- 2. Section incorporation, the state cate of examiner duty of to “It be the the state examiner shall ap- thereon his certificate of shall endorse capital adequacy inquire the of the struc- into proval compliance upon with said and exam- incorporators, by proposed the fu- the ture any, requirements, if he shall then is- iner’s proposed earning prospects cor- of the ture corporation bearing to such the sue charter ability general poration, character and the office, of his which charter shall be seal incorporators, the convenience and authority corpora- sufficient such deemed by community to be served of the needs banking. tion to commence business corporation, proposed and whether or not its shall file in his office one The state examiner powers corporate proposed are consistent triplicate originals of the articles of requirements purpose with the incorporation, and one in office of the banking of this state. The state exam- laws state, secretary of he shall return one to as to whether or iner be the sole shall incorporators representative. or their granted, shall be shall not a charter approved authority approve reject the charter is either or re- When to or have either jected any any incorporation. the state examiner shall issue Before certificate regarding rejected of law application approved of fact and conclusions the state request requirements upon per- forth herein. The ex- five set shall against upon own motion conduct aminer assess advance sons or examiner’s Wyo- upon public applicants with the for the his own in accordance charter, against applicant ming 9- [§§ Administrative Procedure Act motion defray rejects $1000 If he the certifi- excess of to costs 276.19 to a fee of not in 9-276.33]. hearing, incorporation fee he shall return it shall be addition cate of representative incorporators provided in and it section 13-45 the stat- their to that office of shall not be filed or recorded utes.” afforded, tunity to rebut detect no can convenience and necessity respect with when it is as to done. The same difference closely regulated business affected a public hearing upon provides section public concern. We note by the record be conducted with request to accordance that before this ever went to Administrative Procedure public hearing, the staff of the examiner practice procedure As far Act.3 before had conducted and completed a field inves- concerned, provides agency that act tigation, report of which public was on provides spe- bare-bones direction and file and available for examination. That 9-276.20(a)(l), W.S.1957, cially § field examination included conferences with each Cum.Supp., agency “Adopt shall applicants, opponents, any interested forth practice setting the nature rules parties as well as a survey of the trade area requirements of all formal and infor- proposed to be bank, served if char- available in procedures mal connection with tered. That information was made availa- cases.” contested parties. survey ble to all That was made in company representatives of the Feder- upon legislature’s Acting charge Deposit al Insurance Corporation. so, adopted rules apply do public hearings. especially to all function of a whether it be appears scope, that within their court, while de is to find the truth signed provide a means whereby every and act it. Barber v. State Highway person may heard, nothing Commission, Wyo.1959, Wyo. 340, should pre there contained be construed By P.2d the rules procedure state examiner conducting vent the “from adopted by examiner, procedure simi- investigation as may deemed lar to that followed a court appropriate.”4 The examiner has thus reception of evidence is followed. A placed duty into effect blend of his trial-type has been found to abe investigate sensible, conduct orderly way of presenting evidence hearings in accordance with the rules he agencies, administrative for the most *6 duty promulgate. also had a It must be part, follow that mode. With it go must separate realized the examiner has a prevail some of the rules which independent investigate task to fea Council, courtroom. In Scarlett v. Town sibility charter, granting Jackson, of a bank whether Town of Teton County, Wyo.1969, protestant interjects a 26, 29, court, not itself into the this in referring to “ He has proceeding. way 9-276.19(b),5 a function in a said that opportu- § ‘after an ” court, to that of a nity dissimilar where decisions for hearing’ an opportunity means usually strictly are made on the hearing. basis trial-type for a a Since trial-type by parties. adduced the adversary evidence anticipated, then trial-type rules function, has an added public The examiner prevail. This necessarily infers that there looking a banking transplantation interest in will be the of some trial 9-276.33, W.S.1957, 9-276.19 to Sections 3. appropriate informal manner when deemed Cum.Supp. by Examiner, prevent the State or to conducting State Examiner such other provides: 4. The examiner's rule referred to may investigation appropri- as be deemed Scope Chapter. part This “Section ate.” procedures by contains which the State Ex- 9-276.19(b)(2) 5.Section of the Administrative may aminer reach informed decisions with provides Act Procedure under definitions: applications to charter state banks “ proceeding means a 'Contested case' includ- in which case the State Examiner shall be the ing rate-making, price but not restricted to fix- sole as to whether or not a charter ing licensing, legal rights, in which duties granted. procedures provide shall be These required privileges party by of a are by law to persons a method which all interested in agency by opportuni- subject after an applications determined matter of such ty hearing.” disputes present Nothing pro- No their view. one that a contained herein prevent per- shall be construed charter is a tested bank contested presenting their sons from views in a more case. Only Supreme practices recently, found in rules, Court procedures again given States has United court trial. blessing the workability of the combina not comparison, we do drawing this In investigative adjudicative tion of func that, here, the examin- fact overlook administrative tions matter and separate inquiry by a asking for er is process. due does violate Withrow But that fits his staff. member Larkin, 1975, 35, 421 U.S. S.Ct. that the ex- requirement legislative unique place 712. This is a can L.Ed.2d where we pos- investigative perform from aminer interrupt opinion. weave this capacity.6 ture, quasi-judicial as his as well making while not protestant, primary it a prejudiced was not because protestant issue, so sometimes innuendo and rebut the given opportunity to it was full directly in complaining more off sometimes senior assistant adduced evidence that the examiner was biased and on examiner, available well in advance investigation, conducted independent continued That of the time Withrow, staff. As said in member of his to protestant’s was not the further legis the contention a combination of We think a rule of prejudice. liking adjudicative creates a lative and functions particularly applicable where discretion risk of bias administrative adjudication, beyond chore has a overcome a presumption honesty officer, in being presiding serving integrity adjudica in those investigate. court said that tors. The without a show contrary, state administrators nothing innovative about There is “ to be men assumed ‘are conscience and filled dual function discipline, capable judging intellectual legal techni years, For examiner. controversy particular on the basis of its trying fault with to find have been cians [Citing own circumstances.’ In case.]” annotation, comprehensive A process. agency employee per a state Withrow 552, entitled, “Administrative 18 A.L.R.2d investigation formed the actual and an as se finding based on evidence decision or attorney general presented sistant the evi pres without outside of cured hearings. dence While counsel,”7 party devel ence of interested .may cases there intolerably in some be an con we have here and ops question unfairness, high risk we do not find that 4, p. that: in its § cludes to here exist. There is chance not the an administrative authori- though “Even slightest predetermination. taint of bias indepen- statutory to make power ty *7 investigator function of The combined improper it is for it investigations, dent infringe process. due judge Ken findings upon facts a decision to base Corporation v. Federal Copper Trade necott obtained, evidence is intro- unless so 1972, Commission, 67, 10 Cir. 467 F.2d cert. brought a otherwise at duced 909, 1617, 94 S.Ct. 40 den. 416 U.S. L.Ed.2d parties knowledge of 963, 1983, 114, 94 reh. den. 416 U.S. S.Ct. 40 decision, opportunity with an prior L.Ed.2d 314. rebut.” explain and ev- procedure choice of here afforded The ultimate The examiner to rebut the ab opportunity proceedings, in an administrative in the ery mandate, statutory advance of the addi- is left to the well in sence of a them furnished recog- of the and will re is within that discretion hearing, so he tional only an abuse of discretion. Beil versed nized rule. Amis, 1972, Thompson draw a for official v. 208 Kan. conclusions as basis actions 6. As said 847, 1259, judicial 658, U.S. 93 nature. cert. den. 409 discretion 493 P.2d exercise 88, 53, quasi-judicial is a term 34 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. em- applied boards or officers to administrative 7. Later for an See A.L.R.2d Case Service also evidence, facts, weigh investigate powered update citations.
49
for
v.
Pennsylvania
examiner to confine
Company of
Telephone
cross-exam-
Commission,
ination to that end.
3 Cir.
Communications
Federal
1026,
1250, cert. den. 422
1974, 503 F.2d
U.S.
trial
A
court
allowed considerable lati-
684,
2620, 45
reh. den. 423
L.Ed.2d
95 S.Ct.
admitting
tude in
rejecting
rebuttal evi-
163,
886,
46
118. It
96
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
U.S.
Alexander, 1958,
v.
dence. State
78 Wyo.
for an administrative
of discretion
an abuse
324,
831,
324 P.2d
850,
cert. den. 363 U.S.
collecting the neces-
without
agency to act
1630,
S.Ct.
scrutiny, fairly inquiry point will conducted to that impartial- must be be tested other administrative when the examiner declares the evidence any as ly conducted 13-44(c), supra, prohibition against et no 9-276.19 closed. I find his § § proceeding, W.S.1957, seeking Cum.Supp. upon This in- further information his 1975 own seq., right any party reopening interested to or to re- initiative the the cludes material evidence. The all relevant and ceive further limitations present 9-276.26, W.S.1957, upon inquiry protes- 1975 his advocated the § consistent might very The then well Cum.Supp. examiner considers tant lead to an uninformed decision, received from these two and therefore ill-advised information all the inimical it, interest sources, weighs judgment and reaches the and need. there- follows, think, necessarily to whether the I as charter shall fore decision the 9-276.28, W.S.1957, required by duty inquire As continues until the § examin- issue. Cum.Supp., findings sets forth his has facts upon he er sufficient which to reach of those upon on the basis an informed and advised decision of fact question. conclusion for the reasoned arrives the charter. or denial of
issuance My then, difference with the majority, lies then, me, legal apparent test whether with their to concede willingness To right all reasonable pursued lines examiner to take additional examiner evidence, subjected the results of his own whether through his own investi- inquiry, through probing testimony; and rebuttal but at investigations gation parties, approve and reached decision what I consider to be same time If he upon placed evidence. has con- the unreasonable strictures based in a preliminaries upon proceedings. appears fair and If it all the further ducted himself deliberately manner then he has that he has limited complied reasonable facts, law, interpretation inquiry by improper into the whether upon or conclusions investigation he draws limits own places by impos- on his by him those facts as found are not limitations upon from narrow the evidence reappraisement In be subject may any hearing, courts. considered at words, reopened we not sit as original do trier of the it the in my facts, we do determine need and he has not opinion it follows carried convenience, duty, sought we not interfere statutory do with his has not fully out judgment. and thereby to inform himself has led him- exercise “unreasoning action, without self into con- that with con- protestant’s claim in disregard sideration and of facts and evidentiary hearing of the first clusion Company circumstances.” Marathon Oil powerless was as matter of law examiner Corporation, Pan American Petroleum any independent investiga- further to make (Wyo.1970).2 P.2d to receive further evidence in a tion or unacceptable as me statutory I believe that in- reopened majority. statutory duty instigation comes quire, it is whether “inquire.” upon him is to I believe himself from an interested imposed examiner task, important party, long be a serious and satisfied this to is not so material performance validity is to have is or reasonably if its be con- will lacking be because the examiner make at the sidered as time decision is inquiries and seek all facts that imposes great indicated made. a view bur- Such upon bearing upon have a the merits of the will den should not and the need of the inquiry subject consider same additional service. I can find noth- placed presentation limitations of ad- Bonham, Bancorporation authority Wyoming su- and citation of further discussion 2. See (dissent). pra, 527 P.2d at *11 recog- in court ditional evidence trials. As questioning did not relate to data majority, the the nized examiner is here public file, which was in the is, that the exercising special statutory obligation senior examiner’s report of supplemen- his purpose should be to our insure that the tal examination.4 Counsel go later tried to obligation purpose of that is fulfilled. into matters which appear to me to have been relevant material question on the say that I do not mean there is no limit of the convenience and needs the of commu- the time attention all to be served an nity bank, must additional problem. the examiner devote to this for explaining reasons necessary he the reopen attempt not that It is hear- making proof offers of evidence, every disclosing for offer of ing however the mate- riality thereof. lacking probative in value it be. may appear not Those weigh, rejected are which he must these offers were subject matters because the ex- courts, action in to review of his bear- aminer determined that the offered evi- investigations ing pro- material, in mind that was dence it could not ceedings come an end at some time affect the answer question need, delay undue so that without only but examiner, because the at the time against decide for the issuance of reopened the hearing and without say But I that he is play- the charter. knowledge as to what evidence might be game within strict time limits. The question tendered on that need, had fore- original closed the on examiner had closed further inquiry except to as- expressed no 5. He concern March about why certain there awas discrepancy op- April reopened 11 he when on his own time posing evidence as to out-of-town banking.5 August investigation, on 16 when he I not say evidence, do this even if gave reopening notice on original offered at the hearing, would have l.3 October been sufficient establish the lack of need bank, say but I for that at whatever agree While I do not with appellant that offered, time was it was legal the refusal of the examiner under the cir- examiner, in the exercise of his sole cumstances of this case constituted a denial power judgment, to, render to listen process I do con- of due think that it was arbi- weigh sider an trary and amounts to offered. I abuse discre- think record clear that appellant during tion. Counsel examiner re- sought confining inquiry was opened first on as to the cross-exami- need for point senior nation examiner charter to a in time to ascertain some six months might have previous. simply whether considered I cannot accept this as a prevented questions, but explor- discharge proper of his continuing duty to ing this when state examiner held that inquire. required He to issue or deny September county compared counties, 3. Later advanced 24. In the no- to other and had tice it is stated that “it determination of question- not checked information elicited naire as to the size of accounts no State Examiner that or evi- against FDIC dence will be considered other than that which data see if such account size was credible. directly support will or rebut the additional There had manage- been reexamination of gathered data the Senior Bank Examiner. appear ment. These exclusions to have result- Applicant and the Protestant will each be ed because of the limited assigned by nature the task (IV2) given one and one-half hours in the examiner. challenge support under consid- 5.Attempts appellant deposits eration.” to show that Thermopolis in the established bank in had Attempts appellant’s inquire dropped counsel to between the first hearings and second why inquiry certain areas rejected were selected pertinence were for lack of objected were reopened hearing. proof during while others not were to and According to an offer of sustained. It elicited that the senior exam- four deposits banks period had lost supplemental investigation iner’s sidered current question had not appellant con- had population, Thermopolis depos- loss, greatest drop suffered the of some banks, $800,000 deposits Worland satisfaction with the in demand and an overall community, drop $100,000. bank in the income trends in the of some they community” exist at the is not ultimate on conditions charter finding, perhaps decision. ultimate of his conclusion on time him, question to be answered to conclude that thing leads me more One support any specific findings by without arbitrary in an has acted quite the examiner. Since a number of the point out majority properly manner. *12 people queried maintain accounts in both object to the form appellant that Thermopolis bank, bank an outside objects to findings clearly strong imply I have a disinclination even to findings. agree I very material three finding percentage that material finding that the examiner’s that appellant people now maintaining those accounts out- Thermopolis citizens view prevailing Thermopolis side would use the new bank. is “desirable” noth- bank is is second part This would be a material of any find- and would conclusion an ultimate ing but ings by the examiner granting a new posed by question point out also license. Without such a specific finding it examiner to answer statute impossible me find any factual another desire for there not whether how the new bank basis would increase the is needed such bank but whether bank deposits community. total community. the interests will serve agree appellant I inclined I therefore am also would remand the proceed- finding that “a substantial volume ings that the the examiner with directions to hold demand deposits and individual permitting of business another introduction of leaving community way pertinent are now all information to the need of the placed with banks located deposit accounts Thermopolis for another bank is an communities” ultimate find- specific in other to enter thereafter importantly point more would out ing but question which the fact of whether a finding, is no or specif- there ultimate in Thermopolis new needed bank would ic, that establishment of another bank in answered. then be Thermopolis result in a would return deposits. finding examiner’s
those give proposed bank would better bank- competition by providing service needed generating “by deposits additional
thereby increasing the total de- volume of lending with-
posits and funds available