Opinion
No. 20991
Opinion Filed June 9, 1931.
(Syllabus.)
1. Banks and Banking — Statutory Requirement for Sale of Assets of Failed State Bank Only on Order of District Court.
Under the provisions of chapter 80, Session Laws of 1923-24, a sale of the assets of a failed state bank may be made by the State Bank Commissioner only on the order of the district court of the county in which the bank was doing business, and such a sale is required to be approved and confirmed by said court.
2. Equity — Retention of Jurisdiction to Administer Complete Relief and Avoid Multiplicity of Suits.
A court of equity which has obtained jurisdiction of the controversy on any ground or for any purpose will retain such jurisdiction for the purpose of administering complete relief and doing entire justice with respect to the subject-matter, and to avoid multiplicity of suits.
3. Banks and Banking — Courts Equity Jurisdiction in Sale of Assets of Failed Bank Continued to Grant Relief to Purchaser of Note that Had Been Paid.
The district court of the county in which a failed state bank is being liquidated by the State Bank Commissioner has equitable jurisdiction to order a sale of the assets of the bank on the application of the State Bank Commissioner and to approve and confirm the sale thereof. That jurisdiction, once having attached, continues to the end that relief in equity may be granted a purchaser at such sale for a note that has been theretofore paid to the agents of the State Bank Commissioner.
4. Same — State Bank Commissioner Held not Officially Liable in Action at Law for Failure of Consideration in Sale of Bank Assets.
The State Bank Commissioner is not liable in an action at law in his official capacity on a claim arising out of a failure of consideration of the sale of the assets of a failed state bank caused by the note sold having been paid to the State Bank Commissioner prior to the sale thereof.
5. Same — Court Without Jurisdiction to Render Judgment Against Bank Commissioner Affecting Assets of Failed Bank.
A district court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment at law against the State Bank Commissioner in his official capacity that will in anywise affect the assets of a failed state bank in the hands of the State Bank Commissioner during the process of the liquidation of that bank.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; T.G. Chambers, Judge.
Action by J.D. Yeargain and another against C.G. Shull, State Bank Commissioner. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
M.B. Cope, for plaintiff in error.
C.W. King and Leon S. Hirsh, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county in favor of the defendants in error, plaintiffs in the trial court and hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, and against the plaintiff in error, defendant in the trial court and hereinafter referred to as defendant.
The issue of law presented is identical with that presented in cause No. 20510, entitled J. D. Yeargain et al. v. C.G. Shull, Bank Commissioner, this day decided, 149 Okla. 221, 300 P. 303. The rule of law announced therein is herein applied.
The facts herein differ in no material respect from the facts in that case except that herein the district court of Oklahoma county rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, which judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court of Oklahoma county, with directions to dismiss the action.
CLARK, V. C. J., and RILEY, CULLISON, SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. LESTER, C. J., and HEFNER, J., absent.