*1 ti. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Argument 235 U. Appellants.
LANKFORD AND OTHERS, COMPOSING THE
STATE BANKING BOARD OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, v. PLATTE IRON WORKS COM PANY.
APPEAL THE FROM DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT Argued 14, 15, January No. 381. October 1914. Decided 1915. regard decision in The of state tribunals is an important thereto ele- in determining ment to be considered the interest which the State by a has in a fund administered state board. having state
The courts Oklahoma held that the creating statute Banking give State Board intended to the State definite title to Guaranty Fund, Depositors’ the fact that fund is to be used satisfy claims does of beneficiaries not take administration subject judicial from the officers of State or them control. This court faithfully will not assume the fund not be will man- aged Murray Co., applied. Distilling Wilson U.'S. 151. suit depositor against A bank in in Oklahoma members of the Banking
State Board and the Bank Commissioner Oklahoma to from, of, compel payments, for, distribution and assessments Fund, Depositors’ Guaranty State, and, a suit under is. Amendment, the Eleventh cannot be in the Federal court. maintained involve the facts, application the Eleventh The brought Amendment suits the Federal courts against members Oklahoma from, of, to compel payments and distribution the De- Fund of positors’ Guaranty stated opinion. West,
Mr. Attorney Charles General State of Oklahoma, for appellants:
The action is the State of Oklahoma. Defend- The capacity. sought ants are sued their'official relief granted against is such them as only as-could officials no They personal of the State. have interest the litiga- Appellants. 235 ü. S. Argument they not officers could not they tion. Were . with the decree rendered. bill comply any way claim plaintiff’s out of seeks the De- payment *2 or if the Guaranty Fund cash be positors’ available in- to Fund Depositors’ sufficient issue Warrants óf payment same. held, Court of Oklahoma Supreme The the De- Fund a fund of positors’ Guaranty is and that - first on the the- State had a lien failed bank’s assets to should for it. discharge whatever State advance State Cockrell, Oklahoma; 630; 27 v. v. Oklahoma Lankford Pac. Engraving Co., Rep. 130 278. is to' object law serve public not private
rights. Whether or not Act Oklahoma served a or a was the private public purpose basis the decision of this court in Noble Bank v. Haskell, State 219 XL S. 104; C., S. 219 XJ.S. 575. is
The,essence the law not to establish a private püblic right welfare; and, conserve such, no justiciable rights are to presumed arise; primarily the law was enacted to return to the his depositor money, prevent but more properly iijury by-bank panics. Nowhere is public .language there showing give used an intent to a depositor right 1, to sue. eh. 22, Laws, ; 6, 22, See Sess. ch. § Laws, Sess. high,
With
exercise of a
executive discretion,
will not interfere. Decatur v. Paulding,
An action to by the Treasurer payment of a unlawfully State collected sum as taxes is one to to pay the State out compel money from its funds LANKFORD -v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Appellee. S. 235 Ú. Counsel Ayers, See Re 123 U. S. the State. therefore one 1, 10; Louisiana Pennoyer McConnaughy, 443; v. Macon & Bruns- 711; Cunningham S. v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 446. Ry., wick 109 U. Co., is con-
Murray Distilling v. Wilson U. placed issue here. The State has man- clusive in the hands of a board of state agement of a state fund case, of the fund is and, as in that officers; has claimants; board, selected that certain pay tribunal to determine what claims shall no other .and jurisdiction. courts have no paid. The sought it is The case is not one move the contrary but on the through the State officer this, its officers. Of sought to be moved through no has jurisdiction, court in violation as it *3 Amendment. Eleventh mandamus, ancillary
The action for to prior a judgment. Jones, Farmers Nat. Bank v. 105 Rep. Fed. being ancillary judgment 459. Not to any previously District Court no obtained, jurisdiction Federal had &c. v. Covington Bridge Hager, 109; Co. 203 U. S. thereof. 540; Lake U. Fuller Ry., Ayles- v. Shore 197 S. v. Knapp worth, Rep. Oats, 75 Fed. 694. See also Jábine v. 115 Louisville Rep. 861; Co., Fed. Wiemer v. Water 130 Fed. 246; Consul, 168; v. Pensacola Rep. Large Rep. 137 Fed. Lehman, 324; Barber, v. 57 Fed. Denton v. 79 Rep. Fed. 189; Fields, 248; Burnham v. Rep. Rep. 157 Fed. Gares v. Bldg. Assn., Rep. 210; Northwest 55 Fed. Indiana v. Ry., Lake Erie &c. Rep. 85 Fed. 3.
This to district rule'applies courts as well as circuit In re 78 Forsyth, courts. Fed. 301. Rep. petition sets forth no cause of action. McReynolds,
Mr. Charles A. Loomis and Mr. Allen Gray Halliburton, Mr. Howard whom and Mr. John W. brief, on the for appellee: were 464 1914. 235 U. S.
Argument Appellee. A judgment against to obtain a officials proceeding specific out of a representative capacity, payable control, proceeding in their is a to obtain charge within judgment money secured, not otherwise meaning Judiciary juris- of the Federal Act and confers States court. And this is true diction the United although may'be necessary to resort to mandamus dan judgment collection of the when obtained. Jor enforce v. Dill. Co., 185; Johnston, Cass Cass Co. v. 95 U. S. 360; v. U. Davenport Dodge Co., 237; S. and see also Aylesworth Oratiott, 340; C., aff’d, v. 43 Fed. S. Rep. 40; U. S. Fuller Heide- Aylesworth, 694; v. 75 Fed. Rep. Hadley, v. koper Rep. 177 Fed.
. against against This is not a suit the State. An action him compel perform prescribed state officer duties by law, against is not an action the State. An officer obey State, who law does not stand refuses for the within, meaning of the Federal Constitution.
A sovereign
presumed
willing
State
to be
must
its
obeyed. Through
laws shall be
its
it speaks
laws
servants,
them to
something.
commands
do
This-
therefore,
being
süit
instead of
its servants
compel
performance
duties,
office,
their
acceptance
they obligated
themselves
to perform. Heidekoper Hadley,
v.
177 Fed. Rep. 1; Lank-
Oklahoma Engraving Co.,
Rep.
v.
130 Pac.
278;
ford
v. Cockrell, Oklahoma, 630;
Fund,
Ralston v. Missouri
248;
120 U.
390;
Folsom,
Taylor
Graham v.
Louisville
Co.,
&c. R.
350;
Ames,
88 Fed. Rep.
Smith v.
*4
169 U. S.
Ex Parte
518;
Young,
The fact that
complainant may
remedy
have a
in
¿n original proceeding in mandamus in the state court
for the cause
alleged,
of action
will not
the com-
deprive
plainant of
right
in
equity
sue
Federal court.
Smith Ames,
v.
The is not a part depositors’’guaranty Oklahoma v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. 465 Argument Appellee. for is not general state funds and under the control of, by, legislative and cannot be used the executive or government general branches the state state pur- or for poses, any-purpose whatever. The fund is in the control of possession Banking Board, can be used solely paying depositors Danby Treasurer, Vermont, failed banks. v. 92; Oklahoma, Í913, Sess. ch. Laws, 31, 6; Id., ch. 22, 6.§
Depositors justiciable failed banks have a right payment enforce out of the depositors’ .guaranty fund. Danby State Treasurer, v. Vermont,
This is not a suit on a certificate of deposit, as a ne- gotiable instrument, but is a suit for money actually de- posited. The fact that a certificate of deposit was ac- cepted as evidence of-the will not deposit, deprive the depositor right out of depositors’ guaranty fund. holder a time certificate of deposit “deposi-
tor” within
meaning
of the State Bank
Law
of Oklahoma.
on
Williams
Tiffany
Banks, 75;
Rogers,
776; Wilkes & Co. v.
Kentucky,
Arthur,
S. E. Rep.
361;
Taylor,
Lamar v.
The Federal courts independent jurisdiction have an in the administration of the state laws in cases between citizens of different States, coordinate and not sub- -to ordinate that of the state courts and are bound to ex- judgment meaning ercise their own as to effect those laws. object As courts giving jurisdiction national St¿tes to administer the laws controversies be- States, citizens of different institute an inde- tween not supposed tribunal would to be af- pendent prejudice or sectional views it would be a local fected independent of their not to exercise an duty dereliction adjudication. judgment by previous cases foreclosed vol. ccxxxv —30 *5 1914.
466 Argument Appellee. for 235 S.U. 20, 30; Seligman, v. 107 U. S. Bucher v. Cheshire Burgess Co., Co.., Julian v. Central Trust 555; R. 125 U. S. 193 Stanley Coler, 437; 190 U. S. Kuhn v. Fair- 93; Co. v. U. S. 360; Oats .First Co., 349, 215 U. S. v. National mount Coal 1(37U, Bowler, 529. Pana v. S. Bank, 239; 100 U. S. n law general of commercial respect In the doctrine will United States exercise the courts jurisprudence In judgment. respect to such independent judg- their own controlled decisions they will not be based upon ment if although usage, question or local is local statutes court, United doubt, States for the sake balanced agreement “will of views with harmony, lean an 1, 16 Presidio Tyson, 19; courts.” v. Pet. Co. state Swift 58; Burgess v. Noel-Young Co., Seligman, v. 107 20, U. S. 30. of . has not it is
When the law a State settled been only right duty but the of the Federal court to exercise judgment construing statutes, state as it also own does when the case before it on always depends the doc- general law and jurisprudence. trine Kuhn commercial U; S; Co'., 349, Fairmount Coal 215 360; Tyson, v. v. Swift 1, 16 Pet. 19.
This not an action the State. The de- action fendants shelter behind the cannot seek State for the Const, their discretion in office. See Art. 5, abuse of which is Oklahoma, to control the method public money in which or state funds should be disbursed. (cid:127)The word “appropriation” has a definite and certain meaning in law and defined as setting generally, apart public from the revenue of a certain sum money specified object, in such maimer that the executive officers of the government are authorized to use money more, and no for that object and no other. State Moore, v. 50 Nebraska, 88; Ristine v. State, Indiana, 328; Clay- 20 ton Barry, Arkansas, v. Stratton v. 129; Greene, 45 California, 149; LaGrave, 25; State v. 23 Nebraska, IRON WORKS.
LANKFORD v. PLÁTTE Appellee. Argument 235 U. Proll 407; Dun, v. Wallichs, Nebraska, California, *6 State, fund in the applied general treasury
As a to be an “appropriation” authority defined from legislature, given proper legal at the time and in form officer, money, out of that supply sums proper treasury given year, whieh be in the for may specific objects against or the State. State v. Lindsley, demands .3 Washington, 125; King, Rep. 812; State v. 67 S. Ristine W. Indiana, 328; v. 20 Shatteck Kincaid, Oregon, v. 31 379. Haskell,
Nothing in Noble State Bank v. 219 U. S. guarantee warrants the conclusion that fund is one of the State. See 7919. officers pre-
Administrative ministerial with duties law for by performance may compelled scribed their those those who perform directly duties in- performance. terested in their Liquidation v. McCornb, 531; Missouri, 390; 92 IT. S. Rolston v. 120 IT. S. 248; Folsom, Taylor Graham v. IT. 200 v. Louis. & Nash. R., Rep. 350; Smith, Indiana, R. 88 Fed. Madison v. 502; Huidekoper Hadley, 1; 177 IT. S. State Board v. Illinois, 528; Bourne, State v. 151 Mo. App. People, 104; Adcock, Missouri, State v. 556. money subject fund is not guarantee ap- for
propriation by legislature any purpose may see contrary special fit. On the it is collected from source purpose. a limited The credit of the State is not loaned, simply the credit of this fund. Ipso follows facto that this against is hot a suit the State. system wrong
Under our of laws there is no without a remedy, and yet deprive appellee in this case of its money deny it judicial relief with barren statement this could not be action maintained because certainly the State would a wrong, work and no less cer- tainly find appellee remedy. without
Opinion of the Court. 235 IT. S. opinion delivered the McKenna Mr. Justice court. equity brought appellee appellants,
Suit in constituting the Oklahoma State Board. The Iron Company, appellee, Platte Works a Maine cor- and a citizen that State became the holder poration of deposit two certain time certificates issued Sapulpa. Appellants & Merchants’ Bank of Farmers’ Banking Board, appel- members and the D. lant J. Lankford is the State Bank Commissioner. September 10, 1912, On the Bank Commissioner took & charge the Farmers’ Merchants’ Bank and of all its
assets and to wind proceeded up affairs. Demand payment the certificates was made Bank- ing Board and the out of Depositors’ Commissioner *7 State, Fund of the but payment was refused.
A prayed adjudging was appellee owner of the decree of deposits deposit certificates and that it was entitled to have the same out of the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund created under'and of laws virtue the of the State. If there be not sufficient funds therefor, available should the Banking Board be to issue to required appellee certificates of indebtedness for the of deposit, amount to be known as “Depositors’ Guaranty Fund Warrants the State Oklahoma” bearing provided interest as 6% by 3, 2, Chapter 31, Article Session Laws of Oklahoma, . 1911, Bill as amended Senate 231, passed No. at the last session of the Legislature, and that levy Board be required against an assessment cap- ital stock of every each and bank and trust company or- ganized existing under the laws of Oklahoma increasing Depositors’ such Guaranty Fund (cid:127) pay deposits “Depositors’ and the Guaranty Fund Warrants of the State of Oklahoma.” General relief was also prayed. ». PLATTE IRON WORKS. Opinion of the Court. suit, hére, dis- appellants
Defendants moved ground jurisdic- miss the bill on the that the court no had tion of defendants, the action or of the persons suit being against the State without its one Oklahoma provisions consent, violation Eleventh Constitution United States. Amendment given The thirty- motion and defendants were was.denied appears No answer days answer. in the record decree one filed. recites that The court entered decree as for in bill and this prayed was then appeal prosecuted. assignments (1) of error in this court are: The suit original an action in mandamus and the District Court
had jurisdiction, no the' same not being ancillary to any judgment obtained; (2) theretofore against the suit one the State, [appellants] “the defendants no having per- being sonal therein interest sued in their official capac- - ity as agents” (3) bill State; amended its face states no cause action relief.
Is the suit one the State? The appellee earnestly negative. contends that the answer should be in the “An say, action,” “against counsel a State officer compel him to perform prescribed by law is an action duties An who to obey State. officer refuses laws does not stand for the within meaning the Federal Constitution.”
These contentions depend upon meaning of the law; they assume commands disobeyed the officers other *8 Staté; of words, the default the officers opposition is personal, in in conformity the law —not —to of But the State. another seemingly and broader con- tention is It is made.' asserted that the Depositors’ Guar- anty is not under legislative Fund the executive and con- trol of and cannot be the. State used either for whatever, but purpose solely “can be used for purpose of banks.” depositors failed Two questions, paying TERM,
Opinion the Court. U. S. one of power one and therefore, interpre- are presented, tation. Bank U. S. Haskell,
This in Noble State court, constitutionality of the act as sustained the an exer of the State. The law in its power gen cise the police there and on. presented passed The re purpose eral was State to the fund did not come for up lation detail this but a in admin consideration, necessarily of the law. affecting legality istration one The crea not justified said to be its tion of the fund was purpose, of the State was declared power adequate and fund,” said, “The was purpose it. accomplish full name. is to secure the repayment its It “is shown by of deposits.” vest, to the should the title
Where the State was immaterial of its administration to create Whether power essence of the the-fund. it to the ministerial adminis- should commit mere Banking and of the Bank Commissioner tration to controversies with subject and them of its immunity, a matter them the circle draw around we are determine,,and brought its competency within has the interpretation: State done? question —which composed Board is By statute, ap- three persons, and other Bank Commissioner Governor; provided pointed the De- supervision “Board shall have control power adopt and shall have Guaranty Fund, positors’ inconsistent, regulations rules and necessary all management of said law for. the administration by levying “against fund is fund.” The created every organized and exist- of each capital stock of the “State an annual assessment ing under the laws” no cent., more, per one-fifth one equal during its continuance as a bank- deposits average daily solely pur- to be the fund “used corporation,” ing *9 PLATTE IRON WORKS.' Opinion U. S. of tbe Court. retiring banks and pose deposits failed liquidating the If at time warrants for” in act. the próvidéd to pay fund be insufficient for such or “other purpose the the properly chargeable against same, indebtedness shall to issue authority have certificates of indebtedness to as ‘Depositors’ be known in Fund Oklahoma,’ Warrants the order State deposits” the or such other indebtedness. It liquidate provided paid is that shall be and’ depositors .full, that immediately when the cash available or can be made discharge obligations available is sufficient to trust “the Banking Board shall company from fund and depositors’ draw from addi- guaranty assessments, provided tional if required, necessary up the amount to make and the deficiency; depositors’ of the have, guaranty State shall the benefit of said-bank or trust first lien the assets fund, against stockholders, all company, and liabilities trust company officers of said bank or and directors or firms. Such persons, corporations all other the benefit may liabilities enforced State depositors’ fund.” guaranty The contention the law created appellee has payment a fund for the directs shall be full from fund or addi- they “from tional assessments.” If fund be insufficient for such it is further Board is purpose, contended, required order to liquidate to issue fund warrants in guaranty insisted, plain commands deposits. Such, are' to which and is neces- imposed of the statute obedience is is to law, to fulfill the sary secure And, therefore, full a-suit depositors. repayment by depositors is not a suit the State but a suit by' officers of the to the laws compel submission the law State, accomplishing policy at once the purpose. and its specific
Opinion, of the Court. 235U..S. contentions and strength There is are not we there be more it, complexity insensible of the statute than the fulfilling language the scheme *10 may and it be embarrassed if counsel exhibits not de- subjecting Banking the Board to by feated incessant of judicial certainly its administration. We inquiries duty it not do its and provide cannot assume that will the To depositors. of all this result payment (cid:127)ultimate the agent. given an It is State active a hen itself makes upon of banks and all upon the assets insolvent liabili- stockholders, officers, their directors, ties and other enforced persons, the which of the fund which its State for the benefit law has created. Distilling Murray Co.,
In v. Wilson there of at bar.' The State South analogy case Carolina assumed the exclusive year management in the of It subsequently all traffic abandoned liquor. the an act “the passed scheme and called State Dispensary to for of provide disposition property act” the ah of the it had to instrumentality up created and wind its affairs. A for appointed purpose. commission was A part the duties commission was to dispose the property, pay collect all debts clue and “from the proceeds all just practicable.” thereof liabilities at the earliest date Any surplus Treasury. was to the State A was duty, therefore, imposed upon the commission collect the assets of the dispensary pay its debts and directly expressed duty was as as was the imposed upon pending Board in the case. . Distilling
The Wilson Company contended that Winding-up Act the State created a .trust, funds in the hands of the commission a trust fund were for held of the benefit creditors dispensary State plain the suit a suit in brought que a ceetui equity trust to compel holding a trustee property his benefit v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Opinion of Court. 235 U. him. The suit, duties there- imposed perform was contended, require commis-
fore, do that which law State but forbade, sioners to commanded, to do law and the what jhe indispensable not a nor an party. State was necessary; *of approval contentions received Circuit took a different Court of this-court view Appeals, just ground there was “no them and decided that that the legis- conclusion providing liquidation lation for the the affairs of the State dis- of its to divest itself pensary, right property intended of that governmental agency, assets endow title right the commissioners with a to the property it so control placed beyond tribunal to take the assets of judicial authorize a manage of the hands those selected to State out *11 to of a receiver administer same, by means such as- trust, as affected irrevocable in property sets its thus to of the same without the dispose pres- nature, 170.) U. (213 S., p. case, it is of the State.” ence at from that bar. differences There the true, has some of the committed to property the owner State was original for and was also the disposition commissioners that of the contributing Here is property debtor. fund for the security in a accumulated banks are but differences, These depositors. their respective In case that officers resemblances. there are substantial liquidate to property administer were appointed specific against it, and this was the demands pay marking ap- the beneficiaries and law, direction any parties making pro- exclusive them parently officers ap- the law. In this case to enforce ceedings They only are not having greater power. even pointed other deposits to indebted- empowered liquidate on levy assessments other banks, of failed' ness déficiency. Therefore, make up banks Opinion Court.
State was said to be a necessary party in case, the cited can, be said to be a necessary party in the pend- ing case because its interest the fund which it has caused be created in pursuance policy shall administered the officers it has appointed rather than by judicial tribunals. Certainly this construction given can be to the Oklahoma statute; and, granting that it admit of dispute, important an element be con- sidered is the decision of the tribunals. state
In
Cockrell,
State v.
It was further decided the act creating the fund was sustained as an exercise of police power for the public people welfare and, having been levied, so exercised, the assessment deposits upon of protecting the purpose of the banks the exertion the same power “which levies or causes a tax levied, the prQperty within the State for *12 the maintenance aiid support of the common schools educational institutions.” And it was said, and “The title of such depositors’- fund vests in guaranty the State just as much so as the common school lands or the proceeds of the sale of same, the and the taxes levied ahd collected for the support maintenance and of said schools, all of- which are in held trust by the State for v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Opinion of the Court. it a fund, Even if were not state specific purpose. management, the at least be fund under would the State.” this the law intended to
From decision appears give Depositors’ a title to the the State as definite as to the common as fund, definite, Fund . school the assets of as the title South Carolina therefore, subject the which was decision dispensary, Distilling Company. in In cases Murray v. Wilson both pending ultimate the case, there were beneficiaries —in in the creditors of depositors; case, the the other if or, you the dispensary. And law— of the each cáse or is the command law—in will, of the claims those beneficiaries. satisfaction does not take having fund this ultimate destination of the State or subject administration from the officers assume that it control. cannot will judicial them We managed and faithfully applied. al., County et County, In Lovett Commissioners Creek Board of al., Banking et composing v. Lankford Oklahoma, 145 Court Pac. Rep. Supreme decided, citing Case, Cockrell Oklahoma composing Banking case in error defendants State, per- officers of “executive Board were con- administering the law under forming their duties officers, Act), do so such Guaranty-Fund (the sideration manage- control and entrusted their and the property State, prop- owned property the law ment that there- an interest,” the State has erty which administration them to their compel against fore suit fact, a suit “is, guaranty of the depositors’ absence consent State; The court further cannot be maintained.” the same confided to the specifically law has that “the said duty authority the Bank Commissioner depositors’ claims validity of to determine *13 476 1914.
Opinion of the Court. 235 ü. “it is guaranty fund,” and, also that their only duty determine when claim is against the bank, valid they further must determine whether such claim pro- tected and from required depositors’ guar- anty fund. v. Oklahoma Engraving Printing Lankford Co., Oklahoma, 35 Any view, 404.” other the court said, only effect would not substitute á judgment of court for that officials, “but would harass and the, confusion, create effect of which would destroy board.” efficiency such case and Columbia That Bank Company Fidelity and Trust v. United States Oklahoma, give Company, special emphasis to Both suits principle announced. were to recover deposits respectively county and state moneys deposited general special deposits. yvill
It serve no review the cases cited by appellee which officers enjoined doing were- from state acts, prescribed, may be, unlawful by unconstitutional ' laws, or commanded valid perform specific laws to Examples duties. such cases reviewed dis tinguished Murray v. is a Wilson, there later example v. Clemson College, U. S. Hopkins The foundation of argument appellees’ is,, as we have said, that the Oklahoma imposed duty upon statute the Bank of paying Commissioner depositors of insolvent suit, banks and that “this therefore, being instead is against its servants to compel the performance of duties, which, their acceptance office, they obligated duty themselves to A perform.” being prescribed, is further contended, officers “can- the, not seek shelter behind the State for of their abuse discretion office.” But these contentions and the argu- ments based all upon them depend incorrect upon an version of the statute, as we seen. have
Decree reversed. PLATTE LANKFORD v. WORKS. IRON Pitney, Devanter, Day, Lamar, JJ., U. S. whom Jus- Pitney, Justice concurred Mr. Mr. Deyanter Day, Justice Van Mr. Justice tice Mr. *14 Lamar, are upon which we divided whether question brought an action, depositor a insolvent state by
this right the Oklahoma, asserting payment' to compel his- deposit Board out the or, if Fund, this be Depositors’ insufficient, the issuance of a certificate of indebtedness then as Depositors’ Guaranty kind known Fund Warrants, the State, a suit the and therefore against is in effect within inhibition of the Amendment to the Federal Eleventh it is Constitution, merely or whether an action compel performance duties state officers clearly prescribed by nature a statute non-political refusing that obey so that officers law do I that agree depends State. represent the'question intent and and that meaning law, the true upon it we are to assume that the commands of determining disobeyed' by defendants-appellants; the law so their indeed, adjudged, upon been con- much, having fession, present case. I is, controlling no decision. think,
There Murray Co., v. Wilson 213 U. seems Distilling (cid:127) distinguishable. That case dealt with tráhsactions plainly á direct property the State of South Carolina/hád in which as a responsibility contracting party; direct interest that the this court held action ground it was of the State was in effect a agents brought-against This appear State. will reference suit It 168, 170, my etc. will be endeavor pp. the opinion, statute, there is that, under Oklahoma no to show on of the part State. responsibility interest such cases in the state court of referred to certain areWe recent which, very one, one and a bears resort, last Pitney, Day, Devanter, Lamar, JJ., dissenting. it directly upon question; frankly conceded deference that should them. At the proper time, it is not to be this forgotten same action was in the District Court of the United brought States because parties, of the diverse citizenship ground of —a jurisdiction provided for in the especially Constitution 2). And, it (Art. Ill, however desirable be to of decision preserve harmony between Federal and courts, cannot, the state we due to our regard duty, independent fail to exercise an judgment respecting meaning statute, true intent and the absence of adjudication contrary previous an authoritative the time that the cause action arose. For this plaintiff entitled to the of its appellee is enforcement contract as made; jurisdiction invokes a Federal *15 very was established for the purpose avoiding the opinion. Seligman, influence of local v. Burgess 107 U. S. 20, 33, Ry. Doe, East Alabama v. 114 U. 34; 340, S. Lyon, 439, v. 115 Anderson 353; 446; Gibson U. S. v. Anna, 356, Santa 116 U. S. B. & O. Railroad v. 362; Baugh, 368, 149 U. S. Folsom v. 159 U. 372; Ninety-six, 611, Stanly 625; County Coler, 437, 444; 190 U. S. Kuhn v. Co., 349, Fairmont Coal 357, The in statute is the so-called Bank question Depositors’ Guaranty Oklahoma, Fund Act of first enacted Decem- 17, 1907, and amended, ber several times but not in essen- respects. tial portions pertinent discussion, they as stood the statute-book when the present (in .cause of action arose year 1912) are set forth in the margin, followed adopted 1913, an amendment in shortly before the action was commenced.1 1 Depositors’ Extracts Act, from Bank Fund as found (Harris Oklahoma, Revised Day), Laws of 1910 seq., et 298, §§ subsequent Session Laws. (299 300, Section 3 p. 54), amended Laws “There hereby an against capital levied assessment stock of every each and PLATTE IRON
LANKFORD v. WORKS. 479 Lamar, JJ., Devanter, Pitney, U. S. Day, 235 that, by It to me seems clear evident language has of this the State no interest meaning law, property part No of it is guaranty through fund. raised general taxation, it be any part placed nor can lawfully treasury State,- or any devoted organized existing or company and trust under the laws of this creating Depositors’ Guaranty Fund, equal for the daily average deposits during its per centum of to 5 continuance in banking corporation. payable Said business as assessment shall be during year of existence of said company, one-fifth first bank or trust year during thereafter and one-twentieth each until the total amount of per fully paid. centum shall have said 5 assessment been . . . hereby assessment, fully per levied, centum shall have been After shall levied paid, additional assessment or no collected' any company, emergency trust capital except stock of bank or assess- provided for, pay the ments, depositors banks, hereinafter of failed necessary by except assessments that reason of increased per at deposits aggregate maintain funds centum of the such of all companies, doing trust deposits in such banks and business under the . . . laws of this State. depositors’ impaired fund shall become beor reduced “Whenever payments per centum reason of failed
below said shall have the banks, Banking power and it shall be its duty levy emergency capital assessments stock of each bank company doing in this impair- business State to restore said and trust reduction, aggregate emergency of such but the assessments ment year, per average one exceed not, calendar centum of shall daily companies. all and trust deposits of such banks If the amount pay such assessments shall emergency from be insufficient realized having against said depositors of banks valid claims all failed off Guaranty Fund, Board shall issue and Depositors’ *16 depositor, having unpaid deposit, a certificate of such to each deliver bearing deposit, per his centum interest. unpaid indebtedness consecutively payable, shall numbered, shal*l and certificate Such Banking Board, in like as state war- manner upon the call of issue, by treasurer in the order of their out of paid are the state rants levy made; Banking shall emergency and State thereafter levy assessments, year emergency provided, as year to hereinbefore from banking corporations capital all the and trust com- against .the stock of State, until such doing in this business indebted- certificates panies JJ., Pitney, Day, Devanter, Lamar,' of the or to ordinary purposes government, any purpose payment depositors. other than the. is Commissioner, holds true, through, the bare legal fund, title to the and enforces the name of the ness, thereon, fully, the accrued interest shall paid. with have been As rapidly liquidated as the upon assets of failed banks and realized by commissioner, applied first, the bank the same shall be after the payment expenses liquidation, repayment of the to the De- money positors’ paid all of said Fund of out fund to the by depositors bank, applied of such failed and shall be the State Bank- ing refunding any emergency Board toward assessment levied reason liquidated Provided, guaranty of the failure of such bank. that the act, re-deposited this collected under shall be with the banks from paid special certificate, certificates, a' deposit which was and or every shall be issued to the bank each and commissioner bank and bearing per4 company, per trust interest annum.” centum By (302) insolvency any bank, in the event of the the bank “may, affairs, possession after due commissioner examination of its take company assets, proceed said bank or trust windup its personal its liability affairs and enforce the stockholders, officers and directors.” (303) “In the
Section 6 event that the bank commissioner shall take possession company subject bank trust pro- chapter, depositors visions of this company of said bank or trust full, shall be and when the cash available or can be made immediately company available of said bank or trust is not sufficient to discharge obligations depositors, banking its the said shall board depositors’ guaranty draw from the fund and from additional assess- ments, required, provided necessary if the amount section up deficiency; have, to make for the State shall benefit of guaranty depositors’ fund, a first lien of said bank assets stockholders, all company, or trust officers liabilities company per- and directors of said bank or all other trust sons, corporations or firms. Such liabilities be enforced depositors’ guaranty fund.” State the benefit of (305) deliver Section “The commissioner shall to each bank bank provisions chapter company complied or trust of this that has with stating company complied has a certificate that said bank or trust depositors,' protection and that of this for the laws safety guaranteed by depositors’ guaranty fund conspicuously dis- shall be State of Such certificate Oklahoma.
LANKFORD v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Devanter, Lamar, JJ., 235 U. Pitney, Day, Van banks, the liabilities oí the failed but this is State done for the sole benefit of the fund. Thus State the has title Ownership. real Not is only, without even the credit for pledged scheme, success for banks to an official permits display while 8 certificate law, with the compliance certificate declares that depositors to the safety guaranteed by State but and by depositors’ guaranty fund, is made a mis- for bank demeanor officer to advertise any deposits It I guaranteed by would, think, as State. be difficult to find more language clearly showing that played place business, company may said or its and bank trust upon stationery advertising print engrave its matter or words by protected depositors’ guaranty its are the effect however, no Provided, bank shall of the State Oklahoma: by deposits guaranteed to advertise its the State of permitted be as Oklahoma; any employés or bank officers or who shall ad- bank deposits as.,guaranteed by shall be the State Oklahoma vertise their upon punished conviction thereof shall be guilty of misdemeanor by exceeding imprisonment dollars or five hundred by a fine not thirty days by imprisonment.” jail both such fine and county (Sess. Laws, 27-29), pp. ch. the third 6, 1913 By act of March provide as to for the issuance of certificates was amended so. section Guaranty “Depositor’s as Fund be known Warrants indebtedness liquidate deposits of failed order to of Oklahoma” of the State fund; properly chargeable against indebtedness or other banks cent, interest, charge per six and to to bear constitute .warrants collected, as depositors’ guaranty fund when well upon the lien first stock, profits capital surplus, and undivided against the a first lien banking ex- laws the State to the every operating under the “All heretofore is- liability fund; and that warrants to' the tent serially in the order of their Banking Board.shall be sued provided takes effect or on hand this act funds when issuance from act, hereafter issued shall and all warrants by the terms of this rapidly as assets As and retired order. order like numerical Bank Commis- liquidated and realized of failed banks expenses thereof, deducting liquidation, sioner, after proceeds Board, said board credited paid to the State shall Depositors’ Fund.” the. CCXXXV—31 VOL.
Pitney, Day, Devanter, Lamar, JJ., dissenting. neither interested the fund nor responsible depositors to it. respect And when we these read *18 and the other act in provisions the the of the state light constitution, the matter becomes still For, plain. more by constitution, Article 5, 55, money “No shall § ever be out of treasury of this nor State, any of nor funds, any the funds under its management, except of an pursuance appropriation law, . . . by . . every such law . shall distinctly specify sum appropriated object it is to be it applied, and shall not be sufficient for such law to refer any other to fix such sum.” It I cannot, think, law reasonably contended that in- guaranty fund was tended to be a state fund, or a fund under the manage- ment of within the meaning of the constitution. To so hold would render the Act violative of the section quoted, its provisions since plainly inconsistent with the slow and formal process of legislative appropriations. Again, Article by 10, 15, of the state constitution, “The §
credit of the State shall not be given, or loaned pledged, to any individual, company, corporation, or associa- tion . . .; nor shall the State become an owner or stockholder in, nor make donation by gift, subscription stock, by tax or otherwise, to any company, association, corporation.” These constitutional explain, limitations I think, why in the framing the Act legislature so careful to dissociate the State in its organized capacity from all participation the scheme or responsibility for its success. Act The contemplates that the cash constitut- ing the fund is to be in physical custody of the banks themselves, until actually needed; 3, for by as amended in 1911,'it was provided that the fund should be re- deposited with the banks from' it which was paid, and' special certificate or certificates of deposit issued to the bank commissioner each bank, four bearing per centum interest per annum; and by the 1913 amendment IRON WORKS. v. PLATTE Lamar, JJ., dissenting. U. 235 S. Day, Devanter, Pitney, succeeding years are to assessments for annual checks, Banking to be held paid by cashier’s necessary in its collect judgment Board until not to bear interest them, during but the checks are I short, Act, it, In as read time are so held. they in- cooperative for enforced simply plan establishes depositors all the in favor of surance banks Commissioner and every bank, each and Bank being charged management to a limited class trustees, owing with duties public interests. political financial and persons having is clear and held out promise insolvency event unequivocal. By §§ possession take hank, the bank commissioner *19 in this event “the said bank assets, of its depositors of be the cash company paid full, or trust shall when available of immediately or that can be made available discharge not sufficient to said trust is company to the said board shall depositors, banking its obligations and from addi- guaranty fund depositors’ draw from the if in section assessments, provided as required, tional And up deficiency.” to make the amount necessary from emergency if amount realized (300), by § off pay depositors, be insufficient to assessments shall de- shall issue and deliver to each “The state board banking indebted- deposit, such positor, having unpaid certificate of ” interest; bearing per ness his centum unpaid deposit, be and to to these numbered consecutively certificates emergency issue of future in the order their out levy required which the assessments with accrued until the certificates of indebtedness annually the 1913 By amend- paid. shall have been fully interest as designated are the certificates of indebtedness ment, Warrants,” and are Guaranty Fund “Depositors’ collected when a charge upon guaranty constitute surplus, stock, capital as a lien as well Devanter, Lamar, JJ., Pitney, Day, U. undivided profits every bank the extent of its liability to the fund.
The entire carefully scheme devised assur- give is. to every ance bank and to every bank depositor, not merely payment ultimate of the amount of the deposits, but of immediate cash or payment certificates salable for cash, in A case the bank becomes insolvent. winding up of the bank’s affairs, with a of its assets liquidation and enforcement of the stockholders, liabilities of officers directors, provided for, proceeds and the are to restoring devoted the guaranty fund and repaying to the solvent banks the emergency amount assess- ments; but the depositors are not to await the outcome ' process. A Act, main I it, as read is to relieve not merely them from the hazard of ultimate loss, but hardships from the normally incident delays winding-up which, proceedings, and as every- body knows, an ultimate allowance of interest is very often an inadequate compensation. ' intended, The law was I think, to render the rights of depositors so clear as to be readily all, understood by and free from cavil or question any quarter. It con- a clear unequivocal stitutes tender of a benefit to every person who might depositor contemplate becoming a bapk state Oklahoma. Under 8 every per- bank is mitted advertise that protected its. Depositors’ Guaranty Fund. Every would-be de- *20 directly is thus positor to referred the terms of law, and on reading may that learn in the event insol- vency “the depositors said bank or trust company shall be paid full,” etc.
It was upon said the argument that this promise, how- unequivocal, “political” ever promise, and therefore is. suit. If it enforceable is a promise it of “political” Oklahoma course is a promise; otherwise not. But does not show most that it is not plainly § v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. Pitney, Devanter, Day, Lamar, JJ., dissenting. U. S. Yáñ promise at. all a and is enforceable of and out out of only kept upon deposit a fund in the banks them- are, selves and controlled trustees whose salaries indeed, paid treasury, from the public charged but who are function, owing no political whose duties are solely depositors to the banks and to and others inter- ested in the banks?
The failure of the any express provi- statute to make sion for an the Banking action Board at the suit of a depositor hardly can This is significant. be deemed Constitution, taken care of (Art. declares 6): justice “The courts of to open the State shall be every person, speedy remedy certain afforded wrong and for to every every injury person, property, reputation.” or
That fund is established for public purpose through not, the exercise of I police power of the State does submit, closely make the fund itself It is public property. I analogous, think, surplus a mutual insurance company. argument will public hardly bear analysis. In of the briefs it is expressed one as follows: “The law, essence of the therefore, is not to establish private right, welfare; but to public serve justiciable as such no rights depositors pre- are arise; sumed to primarily law was not enacted to depositor return to the money, his but more properly prevent public injury by panics. Nowhere is language showing there used an give intent a de- positor- right But, panics sue.” since bank part caused the fear on the their money is, money their or ability withdraw the —that otherwise realize their déposits jeopardy, —is argument clearly pretty defeats itself.
Not has the no only part raising of-the guaranty it, responsi- fund nor -in nor property interest bility it, distribution of nor even the remotest *21 Pitney, Lamar, Day, Devanter, JJ., dissenting. Van Ü. S. reversionary right should the scheme a but failure, prove Act the contains of expression a that no. the public trustees are to be clothed immunity that with. private of from suit which is one the prerogatives of sov- ereignty. There is nothing suggest any participation by the State in the transaction, that except declares § that “The shall State have the benefit the De- Guaranty Fund first positors’ lien upon the assets etc., and bank,” said that “such liabilities may be en- forced for the Depositors’ benefit n Guaranty Fund.” But does not this plainly show that the State is to be a merely party, nominal thart beneficiary? alone is the real It seems me language naturally brought' action imports familiar in name of one but for the sole an another; use action plaintiff which the time nominal at same avows that he has no interest I proceeds. cannot find or elsewhere, anything suggest that State is to be active agent matter, an otherwise as than the Bank Commissioner therein. act is argued
It the Board with discre- endowed tionary powers in respect to the administration of I Act fund. concede that implies considerable latitude discretion respect administrative with management fund; care but dif- quite provision ferent for the payment depositors. the plain “Pay cash, Here mandate is: so far you it, give have certificates indebtedness warrants to the extent the cash falls short.” argument in behalf of appellants goes “It length saying: (the fund) may only be used not pay banks, failed frequently failing to aid banks while in a All condition. of the fund available at might, particular judgment Banking. time Board, be better used to disabled banks than to aid. v. PLATTE IRON WORKS. JJ., Lamar, Pitney, Devanter, 235 U. Day, *22 of par- depositors applied payment immediate into the cus- already ticular which had been taken bank avail- way Bank In this the tody the Commissioner. ' Board, in might Banking by able funds be withdrawn from the a failed discretion,' payment exercise argu- As results to which the bank,” showing etc. to paying discretionary powers respect ment if illuminating; but this is depositors logically leads, enactment, this anything spirit is clear letter it is no means intended that législature by that to in subject support- or it use any part should condition, in a or in other ing failing banks while form hazardous enterprise.
And that interest on seem.plain enough it would an on the part part State a discretion into the Act con- ought not be read to promised is, when the result to make struction, enforceable guaranty readily clear or more more but, to it unenforceable depositors, contrary, on render the consent of the and therefore ma- except with it otherwise terially depositors less valuable than be. would proper
It is that for the interpretation submitted if or, its construction needed statute — construction that —we should observe fundamental rules apply contracts; disagreement upon for while there is the ques- party it, agree is a to we all that tion whether the State contract, importance, and one of wide Act prescribes depositors, public banks and the and that the between it seeing much carried out and interest is as concerned to its true intent and as according meaning enforced only be made. Not has the contract requiring their to make this contract with obliged the banks it expressed but in the has the terms law depositors, therefore, ought made. The .courts, which it shall be reasonably such interpretation an adopt means all 488 Lamar, JJ.,
Pitney,
Devanter,
U.
Day, Van
235
placed
been
presumably
placed
would have
upon
by ordinary
the statute
bankers
judicial
interpretation;
reading
according
advance
terms,
of its
import
legal
to the fair
without resort
it,
in order to overthrow or'
subtlety
seeking
Weaken
give
effect,
it and
uphold
magis
“Utres
valeat
rather
eat”; and if
quarn
construction be
per
needed, adopting
which the
had
meaning
promisor
reason
believe
promisee
accepting
relied
the offer.
Kent
Binghamton
*557;
Bridge,
Com.
51, 74;
Wall.
Howard,
499, 506;
7 Wall.
Ewing v.
Rubber
Empire
Mfg.
Law,
73 N. J.
Morris,
602, 610;
Co.
Gunnison v. Ban
Vermont, 490; Jordon v.
croft,
Dyer, Vermont, 104,
*23
24
668;
Scott,
Dec.
Barlow v.
N. Y. 40, 42;
80 Am.
Tallcot
Arnold,
616;
N. Y.
Hoyt,
v.
61
White v.
LANKFORD *. PLATTE IRON WORKS. U. JJ., dissenting. Pitney, Day, Devantee, Lamae, S.. Taylor ex rel. Cockrell (1910), Oklahoma, 630; 112 Pac. 1000. This was an action for a Rep. writ the relation of the “State mandamus instituted (a constitutional Inspector” Examiner officer with large which he is powers, performance independ- Executive), ent Chief require state bank to examine the permit commissioner relator records pertaining accounts collection disburse- depositors’ guaranty ment fund and the assets failed or insolvent banks. Relator invoked statute Examiner Inspector “The shall' declared: the books and accounts officers whose examine of.state of the State, it is to' collect or disburse funds duty at least (under) management year.” once each As (27 the sole in- Oklahoma, 632), question the court said was volved was whether relator authorized under response court’s law examine these -records. The expressed, Bank Commissioner is succinctly —“That officer has not been and cannot be questioned. state That depositors’ guaranty fund, and the funds failed of a Bank Commissioner for the hands depositors’ reimbursing guaranty fund, fund the State as school fund as much a the common . . depositors’ also . The title of guar- true. such in. vests as much so as the com- anty just lands, same, mon or the of the sale proceeds school *24 and collected for the maintenance and the taxes levied of of said all are held in trust schools, and support a if it by specific purpose. for Even were not a the State a fund under the manage- state would at least be fund, to I see that this amounts ment of State.” cannot the statute in re- any the of a construction the placing now before us.. The de- spect the pertinent question depositors’ guaranty that the cision in effect was of the management through the State was the under that, therefore, commissioner, officer, a state bank 49Ó Day,
Pitney, Devanter, Lamar, JJ., dissenting. of the subject the accounts latter were to examination Inspector by the Examiner the terms stat- his Treating ute that defined duties. as a decision that fund is in State, the title of the within meaning from that this is far that statute, very holding the real of the fund is in the so ownership as to clothe the immunity of the fund with in .managers' from suit a con- of the stated troversy raised one beneficiaries. The puts decision rather Bank Commissioner a sub- than in that him to position partici- ordinate one entitles sovereign’s from pate immunity responsibility action in courts of justice. Bank & Trust v. United Fidelity
Columbia Co. States & Guaranty (1912), Oklahoma, Co. Pac. 535; Rep. applied 556. The bank commissioner a state court for connection orders in administration . affairs of insolvent of which he an was in possession, granted, the creditors and prayed depositors all they might Fidelity relief which entitled. The to. & petition filed its intervention, Company it had alleging signed, surety bank, a bond Oklahoma for the sum of $50,000 pro- tect the loss reason deposit possession bank of funds in certain commissioners commissioner office; of the and that the bank land since taking charge assets bank had acted under and control of the State Banking Board, direction depositors had claims in full without paid the other protecting deposit which the inter- way vening petitioner surety. trial court rendered the bank directing decree commissioner to treat amount the commissioners due the land office as a deposit and over to said their rata pay pro share The Supreme Court, upon the assets. review of legislation (Comp. Laws, 1909, 7943) other relating custody permanent investment school *25 PLATTE IRON
LANKFORD v. WORKS. 49Í JJ., U. Devanter, Lamar, Pitney, Day, dissenting. Van of the commissioners of the State in hands funds (inter alia) might that provided they land office, security being held upon given, in bank that deposited money not the State’s was within the deposit such a Law, of 3 Fund purview hence was entitled relief. In the surety that not course (p. 540) this the court held that reaching conclusion having responded implied the invitation the surety, for relief behalf creditors and relator’s prayer petition entitled “maintain its inter- depositors, was if it has relation to vention, rights,, any, and have its fund, having determined without guaranty the bank was of its bond.” There no previously paid penalty was clothed with intimation that Bank Commissioner discretion immunity action, from endowed with that he should be sued. inappropriate that rendered Eng. & Com'r, Ptg. (1913), v. Oklahoma Co. Lankford, Pac. The court 404; Rep. simply 278. Oklahoma, of a defunct bank “merchandise creditor” held rata with the pro not to share entitled assets. distribution that both of the latter cases were observed two
It will be claims; upon the merits the intervenor’s decided immunity with the from inconsistent, indeed, grounds that is now asserted. suit- subsequent decision was
The last-mentioned rights accrued; present plaintiff time when the , in 27 and 33 Oklahoma were decided before eases time. the cause of action case, only
Another
decided
after
by the
acquired jurisdiction
this court
accrued
after
Commissioners, v.
appeal,
al.,
is Lovett et
taking
767).
Rep.
145 Pac.
29, 1914,
Here
(September
Lankford
distinctly
has
held that
Court of Oklahoma
Supreme
brought by
depositor
.
for mandamus
petition
payment
the de-
require
Devanter, Lamar, JJ., Pitney, Day,
*26
is
a
in effect
suit
the
and
posit
against
the
Board is
of the
of
part
govern
a
executive branch
the
of
charged
judgment
ment
with the exercise
and discre
law,
tion
administration of the
so that
their acts’
This,
course,
cannot be controlled
mandamus.
of
in
of
of
directly
present
the contention
appel
favor
the
control
Ought
lants.
it to.
our decision? What are the
grounds
proceeded?
which the state court
upon
(a) Cit
of the
ing
language
gives
the
Act that
to the State a first
upon', the assets
the
Bank,
invoking
lien
the au
thority
Taylor
ex rel.
27
Cockrell, Oklahoma,
633
the court holds
630,
(supra),
judgment
in
depositor
favor
“would directly affect the State,
would,
effect,
judgment
be a
against
the State,.
and would
subjection
state funds
require
satisfy
to
judgment.” This
said
treats the word “title” as equiva
to “ownership.”
lent
I have endeavored to show that
language
this
inconsistent with the
purpose
and that
Act,
state
renders
ownership
Act,
in its other
essential provisions,
inconsistent .with the limitations
constitution,
found
the state
(b) The court cites
Murray v.
Co.,
Wilson
For, nominally if the is not effect action brought any, liability to enforce against State, is not duty property, or interfere with its or per- officers to merely public has for its object require owing duty, nature, not of a plain political form a official is plaintiff persons among to a class of whom special included, properly to be deemed suit is not of the Eleventh Amend- prohibition the State within the TERM, 1914. JJ., Pitney, Day, Devanter, Lamar, 235 U. S. by appellant’s are referred counsel to ment. We Louisiana 711; Jumel, Cunningham 107 U. S. v. Macon & Bruns v. 446; Hagood Southern, 109 U. S. R., wick R. U. S. U. S. Y. 443; re N. Ayers, In Co. v. 52; 230; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 134 U. S. Steele, U. S. 436; Reeves, 178 U. S. Smith v. similar 1, 10; cases. broad distinction, is a uniformly recognized But there itas seems to court, which, me, this takes by present prohibition out of the the Eleventh Amendment. action in Board expressed Liquidation It was well v. McComb, 531, 541, court, where Mr. by Justice Bradley, objections proceeding against “The said: state officers injunction is, are: by first, mandamus that it in effect, itself; and, proceeding secondly, that it official discretion with the interferes vested officers. things is conceded that neither these It can be done. consent, without its cannot A be sued an in cannot and a court substitute its own dividual; discretion of executive officers belonging for that matters of the latter. jurisdiction But has proper been well that, plain- settled, duty, when official requiring no discretion, performed, is and performance exercise any person who will sustain refused, personal injury such have mandamus compel per refusal duty such formance; and when threatened be violated positive act, any person some official who will sustain *28 thereby, for personal injury which adequate compensation n law, may injunction be had at have an prevent cannot In U. Case, p. 727, it.” the Jumel S. at Mr. Chief said: “The relators do not occupy Justice Waite posi of demanding payment tion creditors the State from charged officer duty an executive the ministerial from the taking money public treasury and handing on them, and, refusal, seeking it over to his to compel specific duty.” that In perform him the Cunningham p. 452, Miller, 109 U. S. at Mr. Justice in Case, describing IRON WORKS. v. PLATTE JJ., U. S. Lamar, Pitney, Day, Devanter, may sued, officers public class cases in which rise to more contro class, given “A third which has said: is the law has an officer imposed upon where versy, duty regard specific in to a a well defined government or functions of affecting general powers matter, in one or performance which government', a interest capable individuals have distinct en more In Rolston v. Missouri process.” by judicial forcement Mr. Chief 390, 411, 120 U. S. Justice Commrs., Fund this suit cannot “It is next contended said: Waite it a suit its effect because maintained the Eleventh prohibited which Amendment State/ and Louisiana States, the United of the Constitution position. support 107 U. S. is cited this Jumel, from that. There the entirely case is different But this a officer to what statute compel was to state effort do is to get him from Here suit doing. prohibited of him. requires a statute The officer to do what state law officer, not the State. The makes is with the litigation to the trustees assign his liens question it duty to claim payment. a certain The trustees they when make they payment. says this officer they have made his if controversy duty is no about not, have and there therefore, as to the fact only is, they inquiry have. The the law. according requirements of a payment are entitled to their made, it the .trustees If has been favor, in their as the case not, If it has decree decree. are all denied; parties must be but as the stands, now court, be re equity, and the suit is before must do in to determine what the trustees so as tained order, what circumstances law, to fulfill the .and under compelled assignment can be to execute the the Governor Reagan for.” In v. Farmers provided has been ob Co., 362, 390, Trust where was Loan & suit was a suit jected effect Mr. said: “There Texas, court, by Brewer, Justice *29 1914. of the Case. U. S. Statement may be said that in which doubtless, sense, ais govern- but only in the question, is interested well-being of its It is interested sense. mental laws; all its enforcement of just equal citizens, in- is not interest governmental pecuniary such adverse it to bear burden of an which causes terest treasury be taken from will Not dollar judgment. obligation enforced, no it will be pecuniary affected decree which of its property none rendered.” action brought this is an establish
Finally, equitable an in- plaintiff, only a trust in favor and enforce not an mandatory decree. It prayer for a cidental by mandamus, which the Federal original proceeding County Amy, no Bath v. jurisdiction. have courts 185; 3 Dill. Cas. County, Jordan Cass Fed. 244; v. Wall. Johnston, 370; County Cass v. 95 U. S. 7517; No. U. S. Daniel, 187, 195; Davenport v. County Greene 237, 242. County Dodge, v. to me the decree should be affirmed.
It seems AMERICAN WATER SOFTENER COMPANY OTHERS, AND THE COMPOSING
STATE BANKING BOARD OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. FROM THE
APPEAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. Argued 14, 15, January 5, No. 418. October 1914. Decided authority Works, v. Platte Iron ante, p. 461. Decided on Lankford The facts are in the opinion. stated