Edward Douglass White

Name: Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court
Author: Edward Douglass White

Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Edward Douglass White. It explores elements such as the United States, insolvency and New York.

Quotes from Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ The question which the record presents is, does the law of the state of New York on which the savings bank relies conflict with the law of the United States upon which the comptroller of the currency rests to sustain his refusal? If there be no conflict, the two laws can coexist, and be harmoniously enforced; but, if the conflict arises, the law of New York is, from the nature of things, inoperative and void as against the dominant authority of the federal statute. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ If the state statute is to be read as saying that whenever the persons named therein deposit money with a national bank they shall be treated as the owners of an equal sum of the assets of the bank when it becomes insolvent, then the state statute precludes in a most flagrant way the possibility of the ratable distribution ordered by the act of congress. True it is that where, by state law, a lien is made to result from a particular contract, that lien, when its existence is not incompatible with the act of congress, will be enforced. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ Much was said in argument as to the public policy embodied in the law of the state of New York, and the wisdom of upholding it. Our function is judicial, and not legislative. Did we, however, consider motives of public policy, we should not be unmindful of the wise safeguard in favor of all the people of the United States resulting from the provision which secures to every one dealing with a national bank a ratable distribution of the assets thereof, thereby stimulating confidence and uniformity of treatment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ But this overlooks the plain terms of the New York law. That statute does not profess to deal with the bank and its relations as a going concern; it wholly and exclusively undertakes to regulate the distribution of the assets after insolvency. Insolvency, and insolvency alone, is made the criterion from which the preference is to arise. Indeed, the statute in terms directs its mandate to discharge the claim with preference, not to the bank eo nomine, but to the assignee, trustee, or agent charged with administering its effects after insolvency has become flagrant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ It follows that an attempt by a state to define their duties or control the conduct of their affairs is absolutely void, wherever such attempted exercise of authority expressly conflicts with the laws of the United States, and either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of these agencies of the federal government to discharge the duties for the performance of which they were created. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ The New York statute does not profess, however, to change the legal relation which results from a deposit made in a bank. The deposit of money by a customer with his banker is one of loan, with a superadded obligation that the money is to be paid when demanded by a check. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court

“ On the contrary, by an affirmative, pregnant with a negative, they deny the preference which is now advanced. This clearly results from the context of the opinions in these cases. They all reason to demonstrate that from the particular facts stated the relation was not that of an ordinary creditor, but was one giving rise to a specific lien or right resulting from the contract, and which was in being before the insolvency took place. Here there is no such condition; there is simply an ordinary creditor asserting the right to a preference arising from an insolvent law. ”

Edward Douglass White

Summary

Quotes from Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature