GENERAL BAKING CO.
v.
HARR, SECRETARY OF BANKING OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
General Baking Co., a New York corporation, sued the Pennsylvania Secretary of Banking in federal court seeking to recover funds held by a closed trust company, but the Circuit Court of Appeals held the federal district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal district court had jurisdiction over the controversy and should have addressed the merits of the case rather than dismissing on jurisdictional grounds, relying on the doctrine established in Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
Acting under Pennsylvania statutes, October 5, 1931, William D. Gordon, Secretary of Banking, (respondent Harr is his successor) closed the Franklin Trust Company, a banking institution in Philadelphia, and took control of its business and assets.
Thereafter in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, petitioner, a New York corporation , presented a bill against Gordon, setting up an agreement by which it undertook to keep on deposit with the Trust Company a sum specified, and the latter undertook either directly or through correspondent banks to accept deposits of cash, checks, etc., and to forward the proceeds therefrom to petitioner in New York. Also that when closed the Trust Company had in its assets $49,690.17 received under this agreement, and its correspondent banks had on hand deposits likewise acquired amounting to $32,403.26.
The bill prayed for a decree declaring petitioner owner of the $32,403.26 and that a trust existed in its favor in respect of the $49,590.17 deposit; also for general relief. The answer suggested some qualifications of the alleged agreement and denied that there was no adequate remedy at law. Otherwise, the allegations of the bill were generally admitted.
The District Court took jurisdiction of the controversy; held petitioner was not owner of the $32,403.26; also that no ground existed for impressing a trust upon assets because of the $49,590.17 deposit; and dismissed the bill.
The Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the District Court had no jurisdiction and should have dismissed the bill without adjudicating other questions. It accordingly approved the dismissal but directed that the cause be referred to the state court for proper procedure there.
Although entered in September, 1936, the opinion below does not refer to Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford, 297 U. S. 613, decided here March 30, 1936. Nothing indicates that this opinion was brought to the Court’s attention. The doctrine there approved, we think, is decisive of the issue concerning jurisdiction now presented.
It was error for the Circuit Court of Appeals to hold that the District Court was without jurisdiction of the controversy. It should have passed on issues properly presented upon the appeal. The questioned decree must be reversed and the matter remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Reversed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Klein, 303 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1938)…v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 620; Security Trust Co. v. Black River National Bank, 187 U. S. 211, 227; Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & T. Co., 215 U. S. 33, 43-46; Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford, 297 U. S. 613, 619; General Baking Co. v. Harr, 300 U. S. 433. In this case jurisdiction was acquired by the district court, by reason of diversity of citizenship, to adjudicate the rights of the parties. That function performed, it now retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of making disposition of the fu…
-
Fischer v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1942)…ctive such decisions by its control of the property.” And see Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U. S. 218, 224-226. The same procedure may be followed by a federal court with respect to property in the possession of a state court. General Baking Co. v. Harr, 300 U. S. 433; Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford, supra, 297 U. S. 613; Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 215 U. S. 33; Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U. S. 335; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 620. The appropriate exercise of the discretion of a federal c…
-
Hyde Constr. Co., Inc. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501 (10th Cir. 1968)…. Koehring Company v. Hyde Construction Company, 254 Miss. 214, 178 So. 2d 838, 848, quoting Dunn v. Stewart, D.C. S.D.Miss., 235 F.Supp. 955, 966. . See United States v. Klein, 303 U.S. 276, 58 S.Ct. 536, 82 L.Ed. 840; General Baking Co. v. Harr, 300 U.S. 433, 57 S.Ct. 540, 81 L.Ed. 730; and Denver-Greeley Valley Water Users Association v. McNeil, 10 Cir., 131 F. 2d 67. . In Penn General Casualty Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189, 198, 55 S.Ct. 386, 390, 79 L.Ed. 850, the Supreme Court s…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth Tr. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Bradford, 297 U.S. 613 (U.S. 1936)