Wells Fargo & Co. v. Coleman

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6453

Attorney(S)

Greathouse & Blanding, for the Appellant, argued that the use of the words " Savings Bank, Bank and Banking Company" in secs. 3, 7, 9, 10, and 16, shows clearly that it was not intended to include commercial banks within the provisions of sec. 4, giving visitorial powers to the Commissioners. They also argued that the act was only intended to apply, in this respect, to the savings banks, where the relations to the public are peculiar and entirely different from that of the commercial banks. In the former the depositor entrusts his money as an investment, sharing the profits of the business. In the latter, money is deposited temporarily only, and merely as a matter of convenience to the depositor. He gets no profit from the business. McAllisters & Bergin, also for Appellant. J. W. Winans, also for Appellant, cited Munford v. American Life Assurance Co. 4 Comstock, 478; 7 How. Pr. R. 150; 20 Barb. 120; 5 Hill. 491; 4 Kern. 139; 17 Wall. 425; 5 Biss. 515; 77 Ill. 263; 4 Thomp. & C. N.Y. 193; 1 Hun. 639; 69 N.C. 498; 69 N.C. 300; 65 N.C. 13. Attorney-General Hamilton and J. W. Pierson, for the Respondents, filed no briefs, but argued:

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

WELLS, FARGO&CO. v. E. J. COLEMAN, ROBERT WATT, and JAMES T. MURPHY, Bank Commissioners

1. That the bill was insufficient to support an injunction.

2. That the act included commercial as well as other banks, giving the power of inspection to the Commissioners, over all.

JUDGES: Wallace, C. J.

OPINION

WALLACE, Judge

Irrespective of the question made in argument, as to the construction of the act, we think that the allegations of this bill would not support an injunction, and of course we could not reverse the order of the Court below refusing the injunction.

Inasmuch, however, as counsel on both sides have united in the request that we give expression to our views on the true construction of the act itself, I will add that we are all of opinion that incorporated commercial banks are plainly within the intent of the act, and subject to examination under its provisions.

Let the order be affirmed.

WELLS, FARGO&CO. v. E. J. COLEMAN, ROBERT WATT, and JAMES T. MURPHY, Bank Commissioners

Comments