◆ SpookStack

2 Lewis vs. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. moneys collected on account of state taxes. On that day the Comp- troller of the Currency declared the bank insolvent and appointed a receiver for whom the petitioner, John C. Lewis, was later substituted. The amount of state funds then on deposit was $6,157.41. This sum, and the accrued interest, the company paid to the State and received an assignment of its rights arising out of the deposit. Then, the company brought in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia this suit in equity against the receiver to enforce a lien for the amount upon all the assets in his hands, claiming priority according to the date of the bond. The District Court, after denying a motion to dismiss, heard the cause substantially upon agreed facts. It ruled that the company was entitled to the rights of the State by subrogation and by trans- fer; held that neither the State nor the company was entitled to a lien or to preferential treatment ; and altowed the claim as one en- entitled merely to a pro rata dividend. The Cirevit Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the asserted lien was valid, subsisting in favor of the company, and entitled to the priority claimed. 67 F. (2d) 961. This Court granted certiorari. 291 U. S. —. That court, following Pottorff v. El Poso-Hudspeth Road Dis- trict, 62 F. (2d) 498, ruled, as matter of federal law, that national banks had under National Bank Act as enacted in 1864 power to pledge assets to secure public deposits. It ruled as matter of state law that the lien is a contractual one arising, not proprio vigore by reason of the statutes, but by contract of the bank as an in- cident of giving a personal bond; that these statutes apply to both state and national banks and the scope of the lien is the same in respect to both; declared, in describing its character, that from the date of the bond the lien attaches to all property real and personal then owned or thereafter acquired; that a grantee of real estate having constructive notice would take subject to the lien; that as to money, bonds, stocks, notes, drafts and other choses in action, the lien of the State is inferior to the rights of third persons who receive the property bona fide in the ordinary course of business prior to insolvency or sequestration; and that the lien ig inferior even to the right of depositors to set-off against their own indebtedness that of the bank to them. Lewis vs. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. 3 The court took judicial notice of the fact that throughout the fifty-three vears «; i state he “ Years Since the enactment of the law both national and tore n 8 had acted as state depositories; that the lien had been receive, woes money and choses in action when captured by a transfer Pe but had never been asserted as to commercial assets lien hea ed in due course of business: that the existence of the banki presented no obstacle to the ordinary operations of th nati, ne pusiness or interfered in any way with the performance by National banks af ¢haie Padnwal fou na! . of ineir federal functions; and that a bank’ oint . . > a bank’s ap- vepted aa evid state {iepository is enstomarily advertised and ae ence of soundnes i ° 31 F. (24) 612. s and credit. Compare In re Blalock, In 7 : City nav é Pacific Ry. Co. v. L. O. Pottorff, 291 U. 8, 245. and entry of th o Ben Sneeden, 291 U. 8. 262, decided after the € judgment below, we held tha. a national bank had , prior to the Act of June 95. 1930 no nower + , » 4¥al, no power to make any pledge to i for bea posits except the federal deposits specifically provided when the fn ongress. Jt follows that, in 1928, no lien arose Mf the Gn os appointed depository; and that the judgment of June oo, tase urt ws Appeals must be reversed unless the Act to whee ae coma e, 604, 46 Stat. 809, authorizes a national bank nner Y a general lien of the character prescribed b gia statutes. * That Act provides: ‘An . * of a Sta te or ann may, upon the deposit with it of public mo the wef becotn ny political subdivision thereof, give securi toe of the sane eis and prompt payment of the money so depeei ad such aseeviatin as is authorized by the law of the State in which : 18 loca i : ¢ in the State.” ed in the case of other banking institutions First. The Panervae anata” + ae receiver contends that the Act of 1930 s) strued a“ should - publie Re authorizing merely a pledge of specific assets to Pe con Poak’s eepontts and that the giving of a general Lien upon the enonsh 1 $19 still wtra vires. The language of the Act is b 3 . . i Males assets, wher néhorize giving @ general Tien on present and futur ; and it should be given that i . 5 e bona purpose of the 1930 Act was to eauatize the pos i re ‘ne iona " 2 ition of - would not in Cs e banks; and without such power national bank n Georgia be upon an equality with state banks in com.