Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

196 Misc. 213

Crofoot v. Giannini

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1949

New York Supreme Court · decided 1949-10-04

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1965

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 94 · 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Cope v. Anderson · First National Bank v. Morgan · Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank of New York

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pecora, J.

¶1Defendant, Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, appearing specially has moved to set aside the service of the summons herein and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that said defendant cannot, without its consent, be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. Defendant’s contention is based on section 94 of title 12 of the United States Code (the last sentence of U. S. Rev. Stat., § 5198). Under said section actions against a national banking association may be had in any State in which said association is located ”. In interpreting this section, earlier New York cases held that the section was permissive and not *214mandatory, and that a national banking association located in another State could, nevertheless, be sued in New York. (Talmadge v. Third Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 531; Robinson v. National Bank of Newberne, 81 N. Y. 385.) Since the decisions in those cases the Federal courts have passed upon the question, and have held the provisions mandatory. (First Nat. Bank of Charlotte v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141; Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank, 81 F. 2d 19 [C. C. A. 2d], certiorari denied 298 U. S. 677.) Being a creature of Federal, rather than State law, the question of where a national banking association can be sued is governed by the laws of the United States. Recently in Cope v. Anderson (331 U. S. 461) the Supreme Court said (p. 467): “ For jurisdictional purposes, a national bank is a 1 citizen ’ of the state in which it is established or located, 28 U. S. C. § 41 (16), and in that district alone can it be sued. 12 U. S. C. § 94. ”

¶2Since movant is a national banking institution located ” in San Francisco, California, it cannot be sued in the courts of this State, without its consent. The motion to vacate service of summons and to dismiss the. complaint will be granted. A similar result was reached in Lane v. Blue Ribbon Trading Corp. (N. Y. L. J., May 25, 1949, p. 1869, col. 2, Steuer, J.) and in International Refugee Organization v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Assn. (U. S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. N. Y., July 18, 1949, Leibell, J.).

¶3Settle order.

/196/misc/213 · .json · Public domain