From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Virginia ex rel. State Corp. Commission v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
May 5, 1975
515 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1975)

Opinion

No. 74-2156.

Argued April 11, 1975.

Decided May 5, 1975.

Anthony F. Troy, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., and William F. Schutt, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Peter B. Work, Washington, D.C. (James F. Bell, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Washington, D.C., on brief), for amicus curiae The Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

Flournoy Largent, Jr., Winchester, Va. (Largent, Anderson Larrick, Winchester, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Before WINTER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, District Judge.

Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.


By the instant suit, the Common-wealth of Virginia sought to prevent Farmers and Merchants National Bank from operating a drive-in banking facility approximately 204 feet from the rear of the Front Royal branch banking office located at Main and Crescent Streets in the town of Front Royal, Virginia. The drive-in facility was physically separated from the branch bank by at least one public street and by other property not owned by the bank. Injunctive relief was sought on the ground that the drive-in facility was a "branch" bank and allegedly could not be established and maintained under applicable state law. 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) and (f).

In a thorough and carefully considered decision, the district court concluded that the question of whether a banking facility constitutes a "branch" is a question of federal law (First National Bank in Plant City, Fla. v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969)); and, applying federal law, it concluded further that the drive-in facility which was the subject of litigation was not a "branch" but an extension of an existing banking office, the maintenance of which was authorized under both state and federal law. We think that the district court was correct in its conclusions for the reasons and the authorities set forth in its opinion. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Virginia ex rel. State Corp. Commission v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
May 5, 1975
515 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1975)
Case details for

Virginia ex rel. State Corp. Commission v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA EX REL. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, APPELLANT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: May 5, 1975

Citations

515 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1975)

Citing Cases

Nebraskans for Ind. Banking v. Omaha Nat. Bank

To be sure, the Supreme Court's use of the phrase "apart from the chartered premises" was not intended to…

Dakota Nat. Bank, Etc. v. First Nat. Bank, Etc.

"[T]he Supreme Court's use of the phrase apart from the chartered premises' was not intended to classify…