◆ SpookStack

6 Lewis vs. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryiand. would prevent the pledge of specific bonds or other securities re- quired in order to secure the deposits of the United States and federal agencies pursuant to provisions of the National Bank Act as amended ;* and that it would prevent the pledge of specific security required to authorize the issue of circulating notes”° The lower court took judicial notice of the fact that for more than half a century the general lien described has been in force, and has not interfered with the performance by banks of their duties to the public; and that national banks while serving as deposi- tories have not, so far as appears, ever been confronted with a conflict between their duties to the State and to the United States. The reasons given by that court for its conclusions as to the operation and effect of the lien under the law of Georgia are set forth fully and persuasively in the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals. We cannot say that it erred in the conclusions ° reached either as to the state law, or as to the facts. Compare City of Marion v. Sneeden, 291 U. S. 262, 270-271. 4. The receiver contends that the lien, if limited in its opera- tion upon commercial assets to such moneys, stocks, bonds, notes, drafts and other choses in action as are captured by a receivership, 1s not a true security at all; that if so limited the alleged lien would, in the event of insolvency, be legally a preference; that to give it effect would conflict with the policy expressed in § 50 of the National Bank Act" which forbids preferences made in view of insolvency; and that Congress cannot be assumed to have sanc- tioned a transaction which though in form a security is in essence a preference. Sections 50 and 52 do not prohibit liens given prior to in- solvency and not in contemplation thereof, whether they arise from express agreements, or are implied trom the nature of the dealings between parties, or arise by operation of law. Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 510; Farle v. Pennsylvania, 178 U. §. 449, 454, The lien here asserted arises out of an agreement executed at a time when there was no question of insolvency ; nor is it restricted in its operation to the event of insolvency. It may be exercised by execu- tion or otherwise whenever the bank refuses to pay. It resembles the lien which is enforced when seizure is made by the creditor SAct of June 3, 1864, ec. 106, $45, 13 Stat. 99, 113. 1Act of March 14, 1900, c. 41, 612, 31 Stat, 45, 49. NAct of June 3, 1864, e. 106, § 50, 13 Stat. 99, 1i4; B.S. $5936, Lewis vs, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. 7 within four months of bankruptey, of property claimed under an after-acquired property clause of a mortgage; Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U.S. 516; Humphrey v. Tatmun, 198 U.S. 91 It resembles also those cases where, under the common law of dis- tress or under a statutory lien, described by the courts as ‘‘in- choate’’ or ‘‘dormant’’, a landlord, within four months of bank- ruptey, seizing or levying upon whatever property was on the ten- ant’s premises, was held to have a valid lien. Henderson v. Mayer, 225 U. 8. 631; Richmond v. Bird, 249 U. 8.174. Compare Minnich anidan ne Ihe anen at hae ig ¥. Gardner, Ns. 669, decided April 2, 1934, The case at bar i unlike Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. 8. 275, relied upon by the receiver, where a New York statute dealing with the ad- Ininistration of insolvent banks provided that in the event of in- solvency the deposits of a savings bank would be entitled to a preference. 5. The receiver contends that, under a proper interpretation of the state depository statute, no lien whatever is intended or arises when a national bank gives a bond to secure state deposits, because the bond required of a national bank is more onerous than that required of a state bank. The bond of the national bank must be double the amount of the deposit; of the state bank only equal to it. The lien is secur- ity for the bond, not the deposit; thus in the ease of a national bank, if the provision were applicable, the lien would be twice the amount of the deposit. As the court below noted, the double bond may have been thought necessary because the State has not the power to examine national banks. But whatever the occasion for the difference, it does not appear to conflict with or cloud the clear statement of the statute attaching the lien to depository bonds as such and without qualifications. The ultimate decision of this question is for the Supreme Court of Georgia but until it decides otherwise we see no reason for not aceepting the holding of the court below as correct. Third, The receiver contends that even if national banks are authorized under the 1930 Act to give a general lien upon their assets of the character described by the Circuit Court of Appeals, the yudgment should be reversed because the bond antedated the 12Comparc In re Ball, 123 Fed. 164; In re Rogers, 132 Fed. 560; Wood v. United States Fidelity, ete. Co., 143 Fed. 424; In re Glover Specialities Co., 18 F. (2d) 314; In re Riggi Bros. Co., 42 F. (2d) 174,