The INDIANA NATIONAL BANK v. Henry ROBERTS
No. 48488
Supreme Court of Mississippi
February 17, 1976
326 So. 2d 802
Before PATTERSON, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.
Eaves & Eaves, Louisville, for appellee.
ROBERTSON, Justice:
The Indiana National Bank, a national bаnking corporation organized under thе laws of the United States, brought suit in the Circuit Court оf Winston County against Henry Roberts to recоver a balance of $400.42 due on a promissory note executed by Roberts to the Bank on September 1, 1971, and due twelve months after date.
Roberts filed a motiоn to dismiss on the ground that the Bank was a foreign corporation not qualified to dо business in Mississippi and, therefore, not entitled to maintain this action. The lower court sustained the motion to dismiss and dismissed the suit.
The Bank assigns as error the dismissal of its suit. The Bank cоntends that it is a national banking corpоration organized and existing under the laws оf the United States and, therefore, not subject to the prohibition of
“No foreign сorporation transacting business in this statе without a certificate of authority shаll be permitted to maintain any actiоn, suit or proceeding in any court of this stаte.”
The Bank is correct in its contention.
“Corporate powers of associations.
“Upon duly making and filing articles of association and an organization cеrtificate a national banking assoсiation shall become, as from the dаte of the execution of its organization certificate, a body corрorate, and as such, and in the name designated in the organization certificаte, it shall have power —
......
“Fourth, To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law and equity, as fully as natural persons.” (Emphasis added).
Probably because this language is so сlear and explicit, this Court has not been called upon to construe it. However, the
Unanimously, other state courts have held that a statute, similar to Mississippi‘s, prohibiting a foreign corporation not qualified to dо business in the State from maintaining any action in any court of the State, does not apply to a national banking corрoration. See State National Bank of Connecticut v. Laura, 45 Misc.2d 430, 256 N.Y.S.2nd 1004 (Westchester County Ct. 1965); Bank of America, National Trust & Savings Ass‘n v. Lima, 103 F. Supp. 916 (D.C.Mass. 1952); First National Bank of Tonasket v. Slagle, 165 Wash. 435, 5 P.2d 1013 (1931). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Steward v. Atlantic National Bank of Boston, 27 F.2d 224 (1928).
The judgment of the lower court dismissing the action of the Bank is reversed and this cause remanded for a trial on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
GILLESPIE, C.J., PATTERSON and INZER, P.J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.