*1 AMERICA ASSO BANK OF NORTH NATIONAL FEMALE OF AND CIATES OBSTETRICS SURGERY, INC., et al. April 26,
No. 75-1106. Decided Per Curiam.
The banking is a national association its principal place business in New York.
offices in Utah and does not agents regularly conduct business in that State. Associates of The brought against a breach-of-contract action Utah state on damages court, ground respond- had induced the ent large money to lend sum representation on the protected loan would be and that the on agreement. defaulted petitioner moved complaint to dismiss the basis of the of National Act, Rev. Stat. U. S. C. 94. pro- That section vides that venue for actions against a *2 municipal any county, or
association shall lie “in State, is city in county court the or in which said association the jurisdiction located in After having similar cases.” the petitioner’s Utah granted motion, trial court the the respondent complaint alleging filed amended that an 94 mak- protection waived the of place ing a loan to the and that into District bankruptcy Federal Court in Utah. The state trial court denied a motion dismiss Supreme the amended complaint and the Utah Court holding provision that affirmed, “permissive exclusive,” National Bank Act is and not Productions, Inc., Apollo Associates 542 v. of P. 2d 1079, 1080.
In Langdeau, Mercantile 371 555 Nat. v. U. S. Michigan Robertson, and 372 U. S. (1963), Nat. Bank v. §94 591 (1963), in Court held that the concerning in courts is state, county, municipal “that permissive, but mandatory, and, therefore, only national banks be in those state courts county the the at where banks are located.” 371 U. grant petition for certiorari Accordingly, we the Supreme Court. judgment and vacate the of the Utah court conten respondent’s Since that did not reach the 94, provisions tion that the had waived of § case for a of issue.* remanded determination that is Robertson, Michigan supra, Nat. Bank v. See is so ordered. Mr. Justice Rehnquist, concurring. Morgan,
Charlotte Nat. Bank v. 141 (1889), recognized exemption that of national banking asso- argues *The apply also 94 does not because Casey Adams, this action is local nature. See v. 102 U. S. (1880). argument This is based fact that a loan was made other those or cities than suit in counties from ciations of personal privilege a they located was which were Id., at 145. them. be waived could associations which this, mandatory of otherwise exception to the This in the current carried forward has been venue limitation federally Michi- privilege. created recodification Robertson, (1963). 372 U. S. gan Bank v. Nat. Shipbuilding Corp., 308 Co. Bethlehem In Neirbo by designating the Court held U. S. (1939), State, corpora- within a for service to be sued federal court within gave tion its consent *3 notwithstanding the provisions prede- that State defend- (c), to 28 U. C. which accorded § cessor S. privilege regarding courts a venue essen- ants federal I tially equivalent § to that found C. see for concluding privilege reason ex- tended 94 is a different from that con- § may similarly or that it not be tained waived of a by the conduct association. Thus, I believe Neirbo establishes that National Bank could be deemed to have being consented for providing service of in that State otherwise qualifying to do business therein ac- cording Utah law. record before us does reveal whether such facts exist in this however, case, and the apparently Utah courts in no engaged inquiry along I these lines. therefore agree the Court’s decision to remand this case to the Utah court in order that it can examine whether may have waived the privilege it afforded 94.§ and that security claimed a interest in the assets of that bankrupcy petition. But the Robertson decision established that bring such factors do not a case within the exception local-action by Casey Adams, supra. to 94 carved out See 372 U. 593-