Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U.S. 387 (1938)

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)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - the State of California, on Behalf of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, and as Parens Patriae, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 474 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1973)

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 - Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Its Own Behalf and as Parens Patriae, Appellee, v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc., Carecraft Industries, Ltd., Frederick R. Weisman, and Al Sweet Motor Sales, Inc., Allegheny Toyota, Inc., Bel Air Motors, Inc., Bergman Toyota, Inc., Bob Mayberry Chevrolet-Toyota, Inc., Bud Haas Toyota Motors, Inc., Falconi Toyota Motors, Inc., Joel Confer Amc, Inc., Knobloch Toyota Park, Inc., Mccracklin-Sturman Toyota, Inc., Meadville Toyota, Inc., Montgomery Toyota, Inc., Rohrich Cadillac, Inc., Suburban Toyota, Inc., Trostle Oldsmobile, Inc., University Toyota, Inc., Belvin J. Kishbaugh, Inc., Bobart, Inc., Continental Motor Sales Co., Inc., Hartman Motorcars Co., J.H. Bennett, Inc., James W. Halterman, Inc., Lancaster Toyota, Inc., Performance Motors, Inc., R.D. Ertley Toyota, Inc., Richard Auto Sales, Inc., Valley Toyota, Inc., A.S. Berman, Inc., Airport Toyota, Inc., Central City Toyota, Inc., Charles A. Bott, Inc., Chester Mack Toyota, Inc., Foster Toyota, Inc., Henry Kehl ..., 704 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1983)

U.S. Supreme Court - Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Republic of Iraq, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the First National Bank of Chicago, Defendant-Appellee., 350 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1965)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - in Re Baldwin-United Corporation (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Insurance Litigation) Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, Appellants, Maine Attorney General James E. Tierney, Intervenor-Appellant., 770 F.2d 328 (2nd Cir. 1985)

Text:

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.

Other documents:
Williams v Donnelly * 827 F.2d 767 5th Cir 1987 | gebra v atty gen usa 3rd cir 2006 | laskaris john p. v segel elliot j. pfadt william connelly shad 909 f.2d 147... | rafael alberti deja todos sus bienes a su segunda esposa, maría asunción mateo | RESOLUCIóN de 2 de enero de 1998 de la Secretaría General Técnica por la q... | decreto 346/1998 de 20 de noviembre por el que se crean centros y se concede autorización para implantar estudios conducentes a las t... | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Granada Andalucía Sala de lo Contencioso-Admini... | novartis trae de nuevo a madrid la campaña vida sin tabaco | Case of Tribunal Supremo - Sala Primera, de lo Civil n 800/2003, of July 24, 2003 | ORDEN AYG/2108/2006 de 26 de diciembre por la que se designa Presidente y Vicepr...