OpenJurist

235 US 496 American Water Softener Company v. J D Lankford

235 U.S. 496

35 S.Ct. 184

59 L.Ed. 329

AMERICAN WATER SOFTENER COMPANY, Appt.,
v.
J. D. LANKFORD, A. D. Kennedy, W. F. Barber, and John J. Gerlach, Composing the State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma.

No. 418.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 14 and 15, 1914.

January 5, 1915

Decided January 5, 1915.

Messrs. C. Wilfred Conard and L. J. Roach for appellant.

Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Messrs. W. A. Ledbetter and Joseph L. Hull for appellees.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

1

Appellant, on June 8, 1912, deposited with the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Sapulpa the sum of $3,337.50. The bank issued to appellant a certificate of deposit for the sum in the usual form.

2

The bank, which, it is alleged, was entitled to the benefits of the Oklahoma bank guaranty law, subsequently failed and was closed and taken possession of by appellees, composing the state banking board. The certificate of deposit was presented to the banking board and payment demanded out of the depositors' guaranty fund, or, if that fund should be insufficient, that there be issued to appellant a certificate of deposit. Both demands were refused, and this suit was instituted to enjoin compliance with one or the other of the demands.

3

Motion was made by appellees to dismiss the bill on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action or of the persons of the defendants (appellees), the suit being one against the state of Oklahoma, without its consent, in violation of the provisions of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

4

The motion was granted on the authority of the court's opinion in Farish v. State Bkg. Board [235 U. S. 498, 59 L. ed. , 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185].

5

This appeal was then prosecuted.

6

The questions in this case are the same as those discussed and decided in Lankford et al., Composing the State Banking Board, v. Platte Iron Works Company, No. 381, and on the authority of that case the decree in this is affirmed.

7

Mr. Justice Pitney, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, and Mr. Justice Lamar, dissenting:

8

For reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion in Lankford et al. v. Platte Iron Works Company, this day decided, ante, 173, I am unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.