AMERICAN WATER SOFTENER COMPANY
v.
LANKFORD AND OTHERS, COMPOSING THE STATE BANKING BOARD OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr, Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant, on June 8,1912, deposited with the Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank of Sapulpa the sum of $3,337.50. The bank issued to appellant a certificate of deposit for the sum in the usual form.
The bank, which, it is alleged, was entitled to the benefits of the Oklahoma bank guaranty law, subsequently failed and was closed and taken possession of by appellees, composing the State Banking Board. The certificate of deposit was presented to the Banking Board and payment demanded out of the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund or, if that fund should be insufficient, that there be issued to appellant a certificate of deposit. Both demands were refused and this suit was instituted to enjoin compliance with one or the other of the demands.
Motion was made by appellees to dismiss the bill on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action or of the persons of the defendants (appellees), the suit being one against the State of Oklahoma without its consent in violation of the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The motion was granted on the authority of the court’s opinion in Farish v. State Banking Board.
This appeal was then prosecuted.
The questions in this case are the same as those discussed and decided this day in Lankford, et al., Composing the State Banking Board, v. Platte Iron Works Company, ante, p. 461, and on the authority of that case the decree in this is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Pitney,
with whom concurred
Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, and Mr. Justice Lamar, dissenting.
For reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Company, this day decided, ante, p. 461, I am unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984)…hing at once the policy of the law and its specific purpose,” id., at 471, but rejected the appellees’ construction of the state statute. See also Farish v. State Banking Board of Okla., 235 U. S. 498 (1915); American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford, 235 U. S. 496 (1915). In Martin v. Lankford, 245 U. S. 547 (1918), the Court stated that the case was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment since the claim “is based, as we have seen, upon the tortious conduct of Lankford, not in exertion of the state law but in…
-
Hertz v. Knudson, 6 F.2d 812 (8th Cir. 1925)…e one and the same. The court adhered to the doctrine announced in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works in two other eases decided at the same term. American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford et al., composing the State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 496, 35 S. Ct. 184, 59 L. Ed. 329; Farish v. State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 498, 35 S. Ct. 185, 59 L. Ed. 330. In Johnson v. Lankford, 245 U. S. 541, 38 S. Ct. 203, 62 L. Ed. 460, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle anno…1 / 3