◆ SpookStack

: Lewis vs. Fidelity & Depostt Co. of Maryland. eting for deposits. The policy of equalization was adopted in he National Bank Act of 1864, and has ever since been applied, n the provision concerning taxation.* In amendments to that Act ind in the Federal Reserve Act and amendments thereto the policy 3 expressed i i provisions conferring p power to establish branches 3 n those conferring power to act as fiduciary ;* in those concerning nterest on deposits ;* and in those concerning capitalization.* It ippears also to have been of some influence in securing the grant n 1913 of the power to loan on mortgage.’ Compare Fidelity & Deposit Ca. v. Kokrda, 66 F. (2d) 641, 642, Second. The receiver insists that, even if the Act of 1930 an- orizes the giving of a general lien, the lien here asserted must fail ecause there are provisions in the Georgia law inconsistent with he National Bank Act and because obligations are imposed upon tate depositories with which no national bank may comply. 1. Attention is called specifically to the terms of the statutory ond which is conditioned ‘‘for the faithful performance of all such luties as shall be required’? of the depository ‘‘by the General Assembly or the laws of this State.’? The argument is that a na- ional bank is an instrumentality of the United States and cannot ubject itself by contract to the laws of a State. But a national ank is subject to state law unless that law interferes with the zActa of June 3, 1964, ¢. 106, § 41, 13 Stat. 99, 111; Feb. 10, 1868, ¢. 7, 5 Stat, 34; R. S. $5219; Mar. 25, 1926, c. 88, 44 Stat. 223. See Van Allen ». \asessors, 3 Wall, 573; Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. 8.138; First vational Bank v. Hartford, 273 TU. S. 548. sActa of Feb. 98, 1927, o. 191, §7, 44 Stat. 1994, 1998: June 18, 1923, 89, § 23, 48 Stat. 162, 189. See 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 116, 344. ‘Acts of Dec. 23, 1913, c. 6, §11(k), 38 Stat. 251, 262; Sept. 26, 1918, 177, $2, 40 Stat, 967, 968; compare June 16, 1933, «. 39, § 4 (a,b), 43 tat. 162, 190. See First National Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. 8. 416; Burnes Yational Bank v. Duncan, 265 U. 8. 17. SActa Feb, 25, 1927, ¢, 191, §16, 44 Stat, 1224, 1232 (to pay no greater nterest on time and savings deposits than state banks); and note in par- icular June 16, 1933, ¢, 89, §11(b), 48 Stat. 162, 181 in which national anke are forbidden to pay interest on demand deposits except on deposits f state, county, etc., where state law demands it. SAct of Feb, 25, 1927, c. 191, § 4, 44 Stat, 1224, 1227, tActs of Dee. 23, 1913, c. 6, 624, 38 Stat. 251 273 (see 50 Cong. Rec. 819; 51 Cong. Ree. 1189); Sept. 7, 1916, ¢. 461, 39 Stat, 752, 754 (64th ‘ong., 1st Sess., see Report No. 481, p. 14); Feb. 25, 1927, « 191, $16, 4 Stat. 1224, 1232. See First National Bank ». Anderson, 269 IJ, 8S, 341, 54; First National Bank v. Hartford, 273 Tl. 8. 548, 558. Lewis vs, Fidelity d& Deposit Co. of Maryland. 5 purposes of its creation, or destroys its efficiency, or is in conflict with some paramount federal law. National Bank v. Common- wealth, 9 Wall. 353, 362; McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. 8. 347, 356; First National Bank v. Missouri, 263 U. 8. 640, 656. What 4h, Gs tha hank aconmoaa mat he defined by the obligations te the mate tae cand ass Ulce aed Waa law of that State. It is quite possible that the legislature might attempt to impose, under the conditions of the bond, a duty which the bank would be without authority to undertake; and to that extent the contract would be unenforceable. But it is not shown that the obligations as now defined by the courts of Georgia are contrary to anything in the National Bank Act. Moreover, the state court, which would be the controlling authority on the ques- tion, might decide that the failure of part of the consideration to be given would not invalidate the appointment, 2. It is urged that acceptance of the appointment as state de- pository is incompatible with the functions of a national bank, because under § 224 of the Georgia Code it has been held that the Governor may issue a fiert facies against the depository bank for the amount due to the State, whereas, Revised Statutes, § 5242, provides that ‘‘no attachment, injunction or execution, shall be issued against such association or its property before final judg- ment in any suit, action or proceeding, in any state, county or municipal court.’ Assuming, without deciding, that there is such conflict, it is not material here. Section 224 of the Code pro- vides merely a method of enforcing the bond which has not been used here, and hence against which there is at present no occasion for complaint. 3. It is contended that the lower court erred in its rulings on the Georgia law; that under the state statutes, properly con- strued, the lien attaches to all kinds of property from the date of the bond; that it applies to real estate and other tangible prop- erty, to money, bonds, stocks, notes, drafts and other choses in action then owned or thereafter acquired by the bank, and that it is not defeated even by a bona fide sale or other disposition of snch property in the ordinary course of business; that, consequently, the general lien would present an insuperable obstacle to the bank’s serving the public in its ordinary business operations; that the bank could not sell the property it was authorized to acquire, for no one would take it subjeet to the lien; that the general lien 8Act of March 3, 1873, e. 269, § 2, 17 Stat. 602; R. 8, § 6242,