U.S. Supreme Court, (May 23, 1938)
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20018941
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018941
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 2: Judicial Power and Jurisdiction
U.S. Supreme Court - Lincoln Property Co. Et Al. v. Roche Et Ux., 546 U. S. (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court - Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1 (1995)
U.S. Supreme Court - Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981)
U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. JOHNSON v. COOK, 304 U.S. 387 (1938)
[Page 304 U.S. 387, 396] fer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain a suit for their enforcement. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, New York v. Louisiana, supra; Kansas v. United States, supra; Oklahoma v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R. Co., supra. The taking of the legal title by the State is a mere expedient for the purpose of collection. It will be noted that the State not only undertakes to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders but, as the State takes title to all the assets of the insolvent bank, suits upon promissory notes and various claims of the bank in the course of the liquidation are to be brought in the name of the State acting through its Bank Commissioner. The declared policy and asserted economic interest of the State attach as well to the prosecution of all such suits. If the contention of the State were accepted, it would follow that suits upon claims of the bank against citizens of other States could be brought in this Court. Many States have statutory provisions for the liquidation through state officers of insolvent banks, trust companies, insurance companies, etc., and if, by the simple expedient of providing that the title to the assets of such institutions should vest in the State and that suits in the course of liquidation should be prosecuted in the name of the State, resort to our original jurisdiction were permitted, the enormous burden which would thereby be imposed upon this Court can readily be imagined,-a burden foreign to the purpose of the constitutional provision. These considerations emphasize the impota nce of strict adherence to the governing principle that the State must show a direct interest of its own and not merely seek recovery for the benefit of individuals who are the real parties in interest. The motion for leave to file complaint is denied. It is so ordered. Motion for leave to file complaint denied. Mr. Justice CARDOZO took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.