Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/50

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
10
NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS.

insisted that the case falls within the provisions of § 2915, Comp. Laws. Under such a statute the rights of attaching creditors, without notice of a prior unrecorded transfer, are superior to such transfer. Cases cited in opinion of court ix ve. Argus Printing Co., 1 N. D. 434; S. C., 48 N. W. Rep. 347, 350; Conway v. John, 23 Pac. Rep. 170; Buttrick v. Nausha R. R., 62 N. H. 413; S.C., 13 Am. State Rep. 578.

Newman & Resser, for respondents.

The defendant is a creature of the statutes of the United States, and claims immunity under those statues. The state can exercise no control over national banks, except in so far as congress may permit. Farmers & Mechanics Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29.

National banks are means and instrumentalities adopted by congress to promote and faciliate the fiscal operations of the government and as such are under the exclusive control of congress, Bank v. Deering, 91 U.S. 29; Osborne v. Bank, 9 Wheat, 708; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat, 316. To the point that the transferce of stock not recorded, has a superior right to a subsequently attaching creditor, Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wal. 369; Bank v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. Rep. 369; Scott v. Pequannock Nat. Bank, 15 Fed. Rep. 494; Dickinson v. Central Nat. Bank, 129 Mass: 179; Boston etc. Assn. v. Cory, 129 Mass. 435; Libby v. Bank, 133 Mass. 515.

Bartholomew, J. This case was tried by the court, and the facts are undisputed. On and prior to November 6th, 1886, one C. C. Wolcott was the absolute owner of 220 shares of stock of the respondent bank, and held certificates for the same. On the 6th and 2oth days of November, 1886, said Wolcott in writing assigned said certificates to A. J. Bowne, president of respondent bank, and delivered the same to him as collateral security for the amounts which Wolcott was owing the respondent bank and the Hastings National Bank, of Hastings, Mich. These amounts aggregated $23,000; and no portion of such indebtedness had been paid when the case was tried below. The value of the stock assigned was $22,000. The stock was not transferred on the