DocketNumber: No. 26,148.
Citation Numbers: 215 N.W. 213, 172 Minn. 310, 60 A.L.R. 814, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1262
Judges: Lees
Filed Date: 7/29/1927
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The complaint alleges that defendant agreed to repurchase the mortgages whenever plaintiff requested defendant to take them off his hands. The answer was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The defendant moved for judgment *Page 311 notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was denied, and from the judgment subsequently entered this appeal is prosecuted.
The defendant is a national bank. The authority of such banks is derived from the act of congress under which they are organized, it being established law that they are instrumentalities of the federal government, created for a public purpose, are necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States, and that congress is the judge of the extent of the powers which should be conferred on them and has the sole power to regulate and control them. Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank,
The act of congress defining the powers of national banks provides:
"That in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, * * * act as the broker or agent for others in making or procuring loans on real estate located within one hundred miles of the place in which said bank may be located, receiving for such services a reasonable fee or commission: Provided, however, That no such bank shall in anycase guarantee either the principal or interest of any such loans." 39 U.S. St. c. 461, p. 753.
In the case at bar the defendant did not act as a broker or agent. It made the loans for itself and they became part of its assets. In selling the mortgages defendant dealt with its own property. Nevertheless we think that defendant was prohibited by the act from guaranteeing payment of the principal or interest of the loans. The words italicized indicate that it was the policy of congress to prohibit national banks from guaranteeing notes secured by real *Page 312 estate mortgages in any case whatever. If we are right in this conclusion, the bank had no authority to enter into contracts for the repurchase of such notes and mortgages, for the objections to such contracts are even greater than to those of one of guaranty.
In Picha v. Central Met. Bank.
In Eberlein v. Stockyards Mtg. Tr. Co.
Farmers Mech. Sav. Bank v. Crookston State Bank,
None of our decisions is directly applicable to the question we are now considering, for the defendant is not organized under the laws of this state.
In Peoples Bank v. National Bank,
But a guaranty of commercial paper sold by a bank and a contract to repurchase real estate mortgages which the bank has sold stand on a different footing. As was said in Eberlein v. Stock-yards Mtg. Tr. Co.
The power to contract for the repurchase of a loan secured by a real estate mortgage is not expressly conferred by the national banking act. Neither is it incidental to those expressly conferred. California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy,
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that even though the alleged contracts were made they cannot be enforced against the bank.
We have not overlooked the argument that the defendant is estopped from asserting its lack of authority to make the alleged contracts. Conceding that plaintiff paid his money to defendant on *Page 314
the faith of the contracts and that defendant has received and enjoyed the benefits thereof, nevertheless there is no estoppel, for it is firmly settled by the federal decisions that a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its powers, express or implied, on a proper construction of its charter, cannot be enforced or rendered enforceable by the application of the doctrine of estoppel. Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co.
We feel bound to follow the rule of the federal courts in a case like this involving contracts made by a corporation deriving its powers from an act of congress and subject to the paramount authority of the United States. These views lead to the conclusion that the judgment is erroneous and must be reversed, and it is so ordered.
Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank , 16 S. Ct. 502 ( 1896 )
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific ... , 16 S. Ct. 1173 ( 1896 )
Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Crookston State Bank , 169 Minn. 249 ( 1926 )
People's Bank v. National Bank , 25 L. Ed. 907 ( 1880 )
Thomas v. Railroad Co. , 25 L. Ed. 950 ( 1880 )
Easton v. Iowa , 23 S. Ct. 288 ( 1903 )
Eberlein v. Stockyards Mortgage & Trust Co. , 164 Minn. 323 ( 1925 )
Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. , 11 S. Ct. 478 ( 1891 )
United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents ... , 113 S. Ct. 2173 ( 1993 )
Plumlee's Administratrix v. Citizen's National Bank , 271 Ky. 226 ( 1937 )
Genessee Trustee Corporation v. Smith , 102 F.2d 125 ( 1939 )
Federal Land Bank v. Crookston Trust Co. , 180 Minn. 319 ( 1930 )
Nelson v. Central Metropolitan Bank , 185 Minn. 449 ( 1932 )
Kimen v. Atlas Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago , 92 F.2d 615 ( 1937 )
Brown v. Union Banking Co. , 274 Mich. 499 ( 1936 )