Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U.S. 591 (1963)

372 U.S.
591
83 S.Ct. 914
9 L.Ed.2d 961
MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK

v.
Earl T. ROBERTSON et al. MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK
v. Elvin E. HILLS et al.
Nos. 55, 64.
March 25, 1963.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents in these two cases purchased house trailers in Nebraska, executing

and delivering notes and lien instruments to the local dealer who in turn
negotiated them to the petitioner, a national bank located in Michigan.
Respondents have now sued petitioner, alleging violations of the Nebraska
Installment Loan Act and challenging the validity of the transactions and of the
documents executed in connection therewith.1 Petitioner claimed that it could
not be sued in Nebraska because of 12 U.S.C. 942 and that 12 U.S.C. 86, the
federal usury provision,3 applied to the exclusion of the Nebraska statutes.
These contentions were rejected by the Nebraska courts and respondents
obtained judgments for all of the relief requested.4 The petitions for certiorari
place before the Court only the applicability of 12 U.S.C. 94 and we confine
ourselves to that matter.
All of the reasons, save one, advanced by the Nebraska Supreme Court for not
applying 12 U.S.C. 94 in these cases we have already rejected in Mercantile
Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 83 S.Ct. 520, 9 L.Ed.2d 523.
The additional ground relied upon in No. 55 was that '(t)he instant action was a
local action, not a transitory action. (s)ee 25404 R.R.S.1943;5 45154,
R.R.S.1943,' 172 Neb. 385, 394, 109 N.W.2d 716, 722, and thus within the
exception to 12 U.S.C. 94 carved out by Casey v. Adams, 102 U.S. 66, 26
L.Ed. 52. This ground is likewise untenable. The applicable Nebraska venue
statute on its face allows suit in more than one county and, in the case of
foreign corporations such as petitioner, Nebraska Revised Statute 254086
appears to permit suit in any county where the defendant can be found. By its
very nature, this is a considerably different kind of suit from the one to
determine interests in property at its situs which was involved in Casey v.
Adams. Moreover, although 94 by its terms is applicable to all actions against
national banks, when it was re-enacted in the Act of February 18, 1875, c. 80,
18 Stat. 320, it was appended to the provisions dealing with usury actions
against national banks. See Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, supra,
371 U.S. at 561 and 568, 83 S.Ct. at 523 and 527. We think Congress clearly
intended 12 U.S.C. 94 to apply to suits involving usury and the related
matters at issue here.
3
The respondents, nevertheless, would have us affirm on another ground,

namely, that the documents in question here provide that all matters relating to
execution, interpretation, validity and performance are to be determined by the
law of the State of Nebraska and that the bank has therefore waived the benefits
of 94, as it may do. First Charlotte Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U.S. 141, 10
S.Ct. 37, 33 L.Ed. 282. But we should not deal with this matter in the first
instance. The Nebraska courts do not appear to have addressed themselves to
this particular issue and, if the question is still open there, they may or may not
decide that under the applicable law, the contractual provision relied upon
reaches the issue of venue in the event of suit.
The petitions for certiorari are granted, the judgments are vacated and the
causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Judgments vacated and causes remanded with directions.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, concurring.
I concur in the Court's remand of these cases, as I agree that, even if the bank
could under 12 U.S.C. 94 be sued only in the county where it is located, the
bank may waive the benefits of the statute. First Charlotte Nat. Bank v.
Morgan, 132 U.S. 141, 10 S.Ct. 37, 33 L.Ed. 282. But I concur only in the
result, since I am in total disagreement with the Court's interpretation of 94
and would prefer to affirm the judgments below holding that the Michigan
National Bank can be sued in the Nebraska courts. Each lawsuit grew out of a
business transaction in which the Michigan bank financed a Nebraska resident's
purchase of a house trailer from a Nebraska dealer. Now, under this Court's
holding, these people in Nebraska who allege that their contracts were usurious
under Nebraska law must, unless the bank be held to have waived statutory
venue, go all the way to Michigan to try to vindicate their rights against the
bank. This harsh result is held to be compelled by a provision of the Act of June
3, 1864, c. 106, 30, 13 Stat. 108, now codified in 12 U.S.C. 94. I do not
know of a single Act Congress has passed in a century which clearly and
explicitly denies a person in one State the privilege of filing suit in his own
State against an out-of-state company where service can be obtained and where
the suit arises out of a transaction within the State. And I am not willing to find
such a congressional purpose in 94. I realize that this Court did hold several
weeks ago in Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 83
S.Ct. 520, 9 L.Ed.2d 523, that this statute requires a suit in a state court against
a national bank to be brought in the county where the bank is located.
Langdeau merely required that the plaintiff sue in one county of the State rather
than in another. Formal logic strictly applied might call for expansion of that
holding to cover the different factual situation here. But that would require a
plaintiff to go to another State hundreds of miles from home to bring suit for a
wrong done him in a transaction in his own State, a result which I cannot
believe Congress intended.
'Violation of sections 45114 to 45155 in connection with any indebtedness,

however acquired, shall render such indebtedness void and uncollectible.'
Neb.Rev.Stat. 45155; see State ex rel. Beck v. Associates Discount Corp.,
168 Neb. 298, 96 N.W.2d 55.
Venue of suits.
'Actions and proceedings against any association under this chapter may be had
in any district or Territorial court of the United States held within the district in
which such association may be established, or in any State, county, or
municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located having
jurisdiction in similar cases.'
Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations.

'The taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is
allowed by section 85 of this title, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a
forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt
carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. In case the greater
rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his legal
representatives, may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of
debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or
receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years
from the time the usurious transaction occurred.'

The preceding section, 12 U.S.C. 85, provides in part:
Rate of interest on loans, discounts, and purchases.
'Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount
made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest
at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the
bank is located, or at a rate of 1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on
ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal
reserve district where the bank is located, whichever may be the greater, and no
more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for
banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for
associations organized or existing in any such State under this chapter.'
4
Respondents sought the return of all installments heretofore paid to the bank, a
declaration that the note, contract and mortgage were void and uncollectible
and an order directing the bank to deliver the purchasers a certificate of title
free and clear of encumbrances.
25404. 'Local actions involving statutory liability, acts and bonds of public
officers. Actions for the following causes must be brought in the county where
the cause or some part thereof arose: (1) An action for the recovery of a fine,
forfeiture, or penalty, imposed by a statute * * *.'
'An action, other than one of those mentioned in sections 25401 to 25403,
against a nonresident of this state or a foreign corporation may be brought in
any county in which there may be property of, or debts owing to said defendant,
or where said defendant may be found; but if such defendant be a foreign
insurance company, the action may be brought in any county where the cause,
or some part thereof, arose.'

Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U.S. 591 (1963)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U.S. 591 (1963)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U.S. 591 (1963)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

372 U.S.

MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK

Respondents in these two cases purchased house trailers in Nebraska, executing

The respondents, nevertheless, would have us affirm on another ground,

Judgments vacated and causes remanded with directions.

'Violation of sections 45114 to 45155 in connection with any indebtedness,

Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations.

from the time the usurious transaction occurred.'

You might also like