BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA fl. BARLING.
641
BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA fl. BARI-ING
et ale
(C1Ircuit Court, N. D. Californw.. December 22, 1890.) FEDERAL COURTS-J"URISDICTJON-STATE LAWS.
A foreign banking corporation can sue in the circuit court of the United State! sitting in California, notwithstanding its failure to comply with St. Cal. 1876, p. 729, requiring every corporation to record each year a sworn statement of its capital, assets, etc., and prohibiting any corporation that fails to comply with the law from suing in the state rourts.
A.t Law. On demurrer to plea in abatement. Smith Pomeroy, for plaintiff. Daniel Titus, for defendant Eva. HAWLEY, J. Plaintiff is a foreign banking corporation, and brings this action against the defendants as stockholders in the Alaska Improvement Company, a corporation, to recover their statutory liability for certain debts of said corporation. The suit is founded upon bills of exchange brought by the plaintiff in British Columbia. The defendant James Eva, who is the only defendant served, filed a plea of abatement, and to this plea the plaintiff files a demurrer, on the ground that said plea does not state facts sufficient "to constitute a defense to said action." The plea and demurrer thereto present the legal question whether it is necessary for a foreign banking corporation, doing business in this state, to make, file, and publish the statements required by the provisions of the" Act concerning corporations and persons engaged in the business of banking," (St. Cal. 1876, p. 729,) as a prerequisite to its right to maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. The statute requires every corporation, at certain times every year, to publish and file for record a sworn statement of the amou,nt of capital actually paid into such corporation, and of the actual condition and value of its assets and · liabilities, and where said asse.ts are situated. It is provided in said act that "no corporation and no person or persons who fail to comply with * * * any of the provisions of this law shall maintain or prosecute any action or proceeding in any of the courts of this state until they shall have first duly filed the statements herein provided for, and in all other respects complied with the provisions of this law." This act is general in its terms, and applies to all corporations, whether foreign or domestic. Bank v. Cahn, 79 Cal. 464, 21 Pac. Rep. 863. It will be noticed that it does not prohibit the conducting or carrying on of the banking business unless the statements are made, filed, and published as therein prescribed. The penalty imposed,for a non-compliance with its provisions, refers only to the right of maintn,ining or prosecuting any suit in the courts of the state. In this respect it is clearly distinguishable from the cases of Ex parte Schollenbfrrgfrr, 96 U. S. 369; Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 733, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739,-which are relied upon to support the plea of abatement. If a state legislature passes an act imposing terms, as a condition precedent, ulion which a foreign corv.44F.no.9-41 .
· t"i
,
REPORTE;R,
·
poration shall have the. privilege of transacting business within the state, such legal binding by the s1;;1te be upheld and enforced by the national courts, and this is the' extent of the principles an1il(luncedin,the{)ases referred to. But state legislation cannot restrict, impair, or limit the jurisdiction of the national courts, and the does not attempt to do so. The petlaltyimposed by the act, wall not, in my opinion, intended to apply, and doeR not apply, to a case1.ikethe present,where the business of·the bank in purchasing the bill ofexcnange, which constitutes the foundation for the institution of the suit against the defendants, was transacted outside of the state of California. :But, independent of these facts, it is proper to state that the authorities go still further, and support the proposition that state legislation of this character should be construed as having application only to the maintaining of suits in the state courts. In Union Trust 00. v. Rache8iR<r, etc:, R,Oo., ACHESON, J., in deciding a·similar question, said: . "The ¥ew York statutory provisions, f()1"bidding suit to be brought upon a jUdgment ,rendered in a. court of record of that state, without a previous order of tlie c6urt in which the original action was brought, g..-anting leave to bring the'new suit, must be held as intended only to regulate the course of' procedute hi the New York state courts. Such was the conclusion of Jndges DILLONalld LoVE in respect toa similar statute of the state of Iowa. Phelps 0' Brifiu. 2 Dill. 518. It is an established principle that state Ipgislation cannot in any wise impair or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Fed. Rep. 610. · States." The to theplear .of abatement is $ustairied. . :, J" " . ' ,
STEPB:ENS 11. BERNAYB. (CWcmt Oourt. E. D. Missouri, E. D. Sepiemberll4, 1890.) DisTRICTCOURTs-JURISDIOTION-RECEIVBB OJ' NATIONAL BANK·
.Act Congo Aug. 13, 1888, ·(25 St. at Large;' 438,) confers the same jurisdiction on the district courts, and declares (section 4) that for jurisdictional purposes national banks shall be deemed citizens of the state in which they are located, but that this . proVision shall not affect the jurisdiction of the federal courts "in cases commenced . by tbeUnited States, or by the direction o.f any officer thel'eof, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank." that the district ,'ourt has jurisdiction of . an action by the receiver ,of an insolvent national bank to collect assessmenta on stock. Affirming 41 Fed,. Rep. 401.
law, brought by t,he United States, or any officer thereof authorized b.v law to sue. "
.Rev. St. U. S. §
the district QOurts jurisdiction of uallsuits at oommon
H. A. Lo6vy, for in error. .. , Geo. D. Rety'ftOlda,: U. S.Atty., for defendant in error. Before CALDWELL,. J. CA,LDWELL, J. This:is an appeal from the district court. See41 The error assigned is the district court had no ju,