Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of California to review a judgment affirming a judgment of the Superior Court for Sacramento County (Shields, J.) in favor of plaintiff in a proceeding to have certain unclaimed bank deposits turned over to it. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. Edward J. McCutchen, Warren Olney, Jr., and A. Crawford Greene, for plaintiff in error:

Plaintiff in error is entitled to be heard on the constitutional question.

Bank of Louisville v. Public Schools, 83 Ky. 219, 5 S. W. 735; First Nat. Bank v. California, 262 U. S. 366, 67 L. ed. 1030, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 602; Woolsey v. Dodge, 6 McLean, 142, Fed. Cas. No. 18,032; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 29 L. ed. 185, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 932; International Harvester Co. v. Com. 170 Ky. 41, L.R.A.1918D, 1004, 185 S. W. 102; Hamilton v. Fergus County, 54 Mont. 301, 169 Pac. 729; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 259; State v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Or. 551, 123 Pac. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 153; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661.

Any proceedings for the absolute and final acquisition by the state of bank deposits, which is based merely upon failure on the part of the depositor for twenty years, to make claim or to exercise any other act of ownership, or to notify the bank of his residence, is unconstitutional and void.

Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 41 L. ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line, 146 U. S. 646, 36 L. ed. 1119, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, 42 L. ed. 137, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Smythe v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. ed. 819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co. 196 U. S. 239, 49 L. ed. 462, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251; 4 Kent, Com. 424; 2 Bl. Com. 402; Deaderick v. Washington County Ct. 1 Coldw, 202; Hall v. Claiborne, 27 Tex. 217; Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N. Y. 185, 13 N. E. 753; Com. v. Blanton, 2 B. Mon. 393; Com. v. Thomas, 140 Ky. 789, 131 S. W. 797; Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256, 40 L. ed. 691, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Cunnius v. Reading School Dist. 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121, 206 Pa. 469, 98 Am. St. Rep. 790, 56 Atl. 16; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 38 L. ed. 896, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 65,

[ocr errors]

32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 555; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661; State v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Or. 551, 123 Pac. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 153; Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, 265 Pa. 71, 108 Atl. 441; Com. v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 259 Pa. 138, 1 A.L.R. 1048, 102 Atl. 569; State v. Security Sav. Bank, Cal. App. —, 154 Pac. 1070; 1 Morse, Banks & Bkg. 5th ed. § 289; National Bank v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152, 19 L. ed. 897; Thompson v. Riggs, 5 Wall. 663, 18 L. ed. 704; Baldwin's Bank v. Smith, 215 N. Y. 76, L.R.A. 1918F, 1089, 109 N. E. 138, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 500; Smiths' Cash Store v. First Nat. Bank, 149 Cal. 32, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 870, 84 Pac. 663; State v. Savings Union Bank & T. Co. 186 Cal. 294, 199 Pac. 26.

If the proceeding is in personam it does not afford due process, because it provides for service upon nonresidents by publication merely, and because it provides for service upon residents by publication without any showing that personal service is impossible or impractical.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. ed. 565; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 13 L. ed. 648; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, 19 L. ed. 931; Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 36 L. ed. 338, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; Riverside & D. River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U. S. 189, 59 L. ed. 910, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 579; Bardwell v. Collins (Bardwell v. Anderson) 44 Minn. 97, 9 L.R.A. 152, 20 Am. St. Rep. 547, 46 N. W. 315; Bear Lake County v. Budge, 9 Idaho, 703, 108 Am. St. Rep. 179, 75 Pac. 614; Brown v. Levee Comrs. 50 Miss. 468; State ex rel. Monnett v. Guilbert, 56 Ohio St. 575, 38 L.R.A. 519, 60 Am. St. Rep. 756, 47 N. E. 551; People ex rel. Deneen v. Simon, 176 Ill. 165, 44 L.R.A. 801, 68 Am. St. Rep. 175, 52 N. E. 910; Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444, 24 L. ed. 1110; Romig v. Gillett, 187 U. S. 111, 47 L. ed. 97, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; Jacob v. Roberts, 223 U. S. 261, 56 L. ed. 429, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303.

If the proceeding is quasi in rem it does not provide due process because

(263 U. S. 282, 68 L. ed., Adv. Ops. p. 119, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108.) there is no seizure of the res, or its equivalent, and because the notice is unreasonable.

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 43 L. ed. 1144, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 797; Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 49 L. ed. 1023, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625, 3 Ann. Cas. 1084; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151, 28 L. ed. 101, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 586; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U. S. 518, 60 L. ed. 1140, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 613; Bank of Jasper v. First Nat. Bank, 258 U. S. 112, 66 L. ed. 490, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 202; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L. ed. 606; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 17 L. ed. 531; Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409, 18 L. ed. 432; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 489, 32 L. ed. 491, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 134.

But the proceeding in question does not even fulfil the requirements of due process for any quasi in rem action, even garnishment or attachment.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. ed. 565; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, 19 L. ed. 931; Shinn, Attachm. & Garnishment, §§ 599, 603, 612, 613; 27 Harvard L. Rep. 107; Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 49 L. ed. 1023, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625, 3 Ann. Cas. 1084; Pennington v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 243 U. S. 272, 61 L. ed. 713, L.R.A.1917F, 1159, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282; State v. Savings Union Bank & T. Co. 186 Cal. 294, 199 Pac. 26; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 38 L. ed. 896, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 59 L. ed. 1027, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, 61 L. ed. 608, L.R.A.1917F, 458, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 343; Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398, 44 L. ed. 520, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 410; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437, 13 L. ed. 761; Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U. S. 503, 23 L. ed. 398; Cunnius v. Reading School Dist. 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121; Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 65, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 555, 197 Mass. 279, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 651, 125 Am. St. Rep. 364, 83 N. E. 889, 14 Ann. Cas. 147; State v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Or. 551, 123 Pac. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 153; Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, 265 Pa. 71, 108 Atl. 441; Com. v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 259 Pa. 138, 102 Atl. 569; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661; Title & Document Restoration Co. v. Kerrigan, 150 Cal. 289, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 682, 119

Am. St. Rep. 199, 88 Pac. 356; Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185, 30 L. ed. 372, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156, 21 L. ed. 860; Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 279, 24 L. ed. 721; Stokes v. Dawes, 4 Mason, 268, Fed. Cas. No. 13,477; Newman Crowls, 8 C. C. A. 577, 23 U. S. App. 89, 60 Fed. 220; Northwestern Clearance Co. v. Jennings, 106 Or. 291, 209 Pac. 875, 210 Pac. 884; Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Newport, 247 U. S. 464, 62 L. ed. 1215, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 566.

V.

The proceeding is not strictly in rem, but even if it should be so held, it does not provide due process of law.

Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185, 30 L. ed. 372, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; The Mary, 9 Cranch, 126, 3 L. ed. 678; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 38 L. ed. 896, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274, 23 L. ed. 914; Tyler v. Registration Ct. Judges, 175 Mass. 71, 51 L.R.A. 433, 55 N. E. 812; King Tonopah Min. Co. v. Lynch, 232 Fed. 485; People v. Three 100-Gallon Stills, 119 Misc. 668, 197 N. Y. Supp. 882; People v. Marquis, 8 A.L.R. 891, note.

Finally the statutes here involved are retroactive as to all deposits involved in this action, and amount to an impairment by state law of the obligations of contracts.

Marine Bank V. Fulton County Bank, 2 Wall. 252, 17 L. ed. 785; New York County Nat. Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, 48 L. ed. 380, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 199; Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 49 L. ed. 482, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243; Smith's Cash Store v. First Nat. Bank, 149 Cal. 32, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 870, 84 Pac. 663; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 4 L. ed. 629; Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 12 L. ed. 447; People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 2 L.R.A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684, 18 N. E. 692; Randolph v. Middleton, 26 N. J. Eq. 543; May v. Cass County, 12 N. D. 137, 96 N. W. 292; Bank of Louisville v. Public Schools, 83 Ky. 219, 5 S. W. 735; Com. v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 259 Pa. 138, 102 Atl. 569; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661; First Nat. Bank v. California, 262 U. S. 366, 67 L. ed. 1030, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 602; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 24 L. ed. 716; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 4 L. ed. 529; Farmers' & M. Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131, 5 L. ed. 224; Golden v. Prince, 3

Wash. C. C. 313, Fed. Cas. No. 5,509; Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, 21 L. ed. 212; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, 24 L. ed. 793; Kener v. La Grange Mills, 231 U. S. 215, 58 L. ed. 189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83; Bank of Minden v. Clement, 256 U. S. 126, 65 L. ed. 857, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 408; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, 11 L. ed. 143; Howard v. Bugbee, 24 How. 461, 16 L. ed. 753; Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118, 41 L. ed. 93, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1042.

Messrs. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, and Frank L. Guerena, for defendant in error:

Article 1, § 10, of the Constitution of the United States, has not been violated.

Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661; State v. Security Sav. Bank, Cal. App. -, 154 Pac. 1070; Greenough v. People's Sav. Bank, 38 R. I. 100, 94 Atl. 706.

The notice prescribed for the benefit of the depositors is legally sufficient.

Miller v. Kern County, 137 Cal. 516, 70 Pac. 549; Nelson v. Blinn, 197 Mass. 279, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 651, 125 Am. St. Rep. 364, 83 N. E. 889, 222 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 65, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 555.

There is no conflict in the authorities as to the distinction between an action in personam on the one hand and an action in rem, or quasi in rem, on the other.

1 R. C. L. pp. 328 et seq.; 1 C. J. 929 et seq.; State v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Or. 551, 123 Pac. 712; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. ed. 565; Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 214, 44 L. ed. 741, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Cunnius v. Reading School Dist. 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661, 201 Mass. 23, 86 N. E. 912; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Ford, 124 Ky. 403, 99 S. W. 260; State v. First Nat. Bank, 61 Or. 551, 123 Pac. 712; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; People ex rel. First Nat. Bank v. Brady, 271 Ill. 100, 110 N. E. 864, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1093; Com. v. Thomas, 140 Ky. 789, 131 S. W. 797; Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, 265 Pa. 71, 108 Atl. 441.

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was brought by the state of California to have transferred to it certain deposits in the Security Savings Bank which had been unclaimed for more than twenty years; and to have these declared escheat. The bank and the depositors were named as defendants. The bank was served personally and defended. The depositors were served by publication, but none of them appeared.1 The bank is a California corporation and has its only place of business there. The last known residences of the depositors are not stated. All the proceedings were in conformity with § 1273 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and § 15 of its Bank Act. Stat. 1915, chap. 608, p. 1106. A judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the highest court of the state. State v. Security Sav. Bank, 186 Cal. 419, 199 Pac. 791. The case is here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended. The question for decision is whether the statutes violate rights guaranteed a state bank by the Federal Constitution. It is claimed that they are obnoxious to both the contract clause and the due process clause.

The substantive provision of the legislation is this: If a bank account has not been added to or drawn upon by the depositor for more than twenty years, and no one claiming the money has, within that period, filed with the bank any notice showing his present residence, and the president or managing officer of the bank does not know that the depositor is alive, then the bank

1 As to two depositors originally named as defendants a dismissal was entered by stipulation. As to one, because it appeared that the deposit had not been unclaimed for the twenty years; as to the other, because a claim had been made by an administrator since the expiration of the twenty years.

2 That the statutes are invalid as applied to national banks was settled in First Nat. Bank v. California, 262 U. S. 366, 67 L. ed. 1030, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 602.

SECURITY SAV. BANK v. CALIFORNIA.
(263 U. S. 282, 68 L. ed., Adv. Ops. p. 119, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108.)

shall, upon entry of a judgment establishing these facts, deposit with the state treasurer the amount of the deposit and accumulations. The suit cannot be begun until after the expiration of the twenty years. The statute does not effect an immediate escheat upon the lapse of the twenty years. It provides for taking over the deposit when so adjudged in the action. A valid claim to a deposit, duly made at any time prior to entry of the judgment, prevents its transfer to the state. Mathews v. Savings Union Bank & T. Co. 43 Cal. App. 45, 48, 184 Pac. 418; State v. Savings Union Bank & T. Co. 186 Cal. 294, 298, 199 Pac. 26.

The procedural provision is this: The suit is brought by the attorney general in Sacramento county. Upon the bank personal service must be made. Upon the depositors, service is to be made by publication of the summons for four weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in that county. With the summons a notice must also be published, requiring all persons other than the named defendants to appear and show cause why the moneys involved in the suit shall not be deposited with the state treasurer. Any person interested may become a party to the suit. The judgment to be entered requires the "banks to forthwith deposit all such moneys with the state treasurer, to be received, invested, accounted for, and paid out in the same manner and by the same officers as is provided in the case of other escheated property." For a period of five years after entry of the judgment any person not a "party or privy" to it may sue the state to recover the money so received. In the case of infants and persons of unsound mind, the period is extended for one year after removal of the disability. Code Civ. Proc. § 1272.

The unclaimed deposits are debts due by a California corporation with its place of business there. State v. Anglo & L. P. Nat. Bank, 186 Cal. 746, 753, 200 Pac. 612; State v. Security Sav. Bank, 186 Cal. 419, 423,

395

199 Pac. 791. The debts arose out, formed there. Farmers & M. Bank of contracts made and to be per649, 660, 67 L. ed. 1157, 1164, 30 v. Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U. S. A.L.R. 635, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 651.. Thus, the deposits are clearly intangible property within the state.3

Banks-jurisOver diction of state

un

this intangible prop- over deposits. erty the state has the same dominion that it has over tangible property. Pennington v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 243 U. S. 269, 61 L. ed. 713, L.R.A. 1917F, 1159, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282; Bank of Jasper v. First Nat. Bank, 258 U. S. 112, 119, 66 L. ed. 490, 494, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 202. It was settled lone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 in Provident Inst. for Sav. v. MaL.R.A. (N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661, that, where the procedure is appropriate, neither the due process clause nor any right of the bank under the contract clause is violated by state, as depositary, savings deposits a law requiring it to pay over to the which have long remained claimed. Compare Cunnius v. Reading School Dist. 198 U. S. 458, 49 L. ed. 1125, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121; Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U. S. 1, 56 L. ed. 65, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 555. The contract of deposit does not give the bank a money not tontine right to re- called for. tain the money in the event that it gives the bank merely the right to is not called for by the depositor. It use the depositor's money until called for by him or some other peris turned over to the son duly authorized. If the deposit state, in obedience to a valid law, the obligation of the bank to the deposi

-right to retain

constitutional
deposits to be
right-requiring

turned over to
state.

tor is discharged. Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U. S. 176, 50 L.
ed. 426, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207. It is
no concern of the bank's whether the
state receives the money merely as
depository, or takes it as an escheat.

3 See Charles E. Carpenter, "Jurisdic-
tion over Debts, etc.," 31 Harvard L. Rev.
905.

The bank's main contention is that it is denied due process because, owing to defects in the prescribed procedure, depositors will not be bound by the judgment; and, hence, that payment to the state will not discharge the bank from its liability to them. The argument that there is no proper provision for service upon depositors or other claimants is this: If the proceeding is in personam, the law is invalid as to nonresidents of the state, since they are served only by publication; and it is invalid as to residents, because they are served by publication without a prior showing of the necessity for such service. If the proceeding is quasi in rem, the law is invalid as to all depositors and claimants, because there is no seizure of the res, or its equivalent; because the notice provided for is inadequate and unreasonable; and because it is binding only on parties to the action. If the proceeding is strictly in rem, the law is invalid, because it does not provide for such seizure of the res, nor give reasonable notice to depositors and claimants.

The proceeding is not one in personam, at least, not so far as con

Writ and

process-service -action in personamproceeding by state to reach bank deposit.

cerns the depositor. The state does not seek to enforce any claim against him. It seeks to have the deposit transferred. The suit determines the custody (and perhaps the ownership) of the deposit. The state court likened the proceeding to garnishment, and thought that it should be described as quasi in rem. In form it resembles garnishment. In substance. it is like proceedings in escheat (Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256, 263, 40 L. ed. 691, 695, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Christianson v. King County, 239 U. S. 356, 373, 60 L. ed. 327, 336, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114); for confiscation (Confiscation Cases (United States v. Clark) 20 Wall. 92, 104, 22 L. ed. 320, 322); for forfeiture (Friedenstein v. United States, 125 U. S. 224, 230, 231, 31 L. ed. 736, 739, 740, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep.

cedure.

838); for condemnation (Huling v. Kaw Valley R. & Improv. Co. 130 U. S. 559, 32 L. ed. 1045, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603); for registry of titles (American Land Co. v. Žeiss, 219 U. S. 47, 55 L. ed. 82, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200); and libels for possession brought by the Alien Property Custodian (Central Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 65 L. ed. 403, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214). These are generally considered proceedings strictly in rem. But whether the proceedings should be described as being in rem or as being quasi in rem Escheat-of bank is not of legal sig- deposits-pronificance in this connection. In either case the essentials of jurisdiction over the deposits are that there be seizure of the res at the commencement of the suit, and reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. Compare Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 724, 24 L. ed. 565, 569; Freeman v. Alderso, 119 U. S. 185, 187, 30 L. ed. 372, 373, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 33 L. ed. 918, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 557; Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 214, 44 L. ed. 741, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603. These requirements are sat- seizure of isfied by the procedure prescribed in the statutes of California. There is a seizure or its equivalent. And the published summons to the depositors named as parties defendant is supplemented by the notice directed to all claimants whomsoever. Moreover, there is no constitutional ering the proceeding objection to considas in personam, SO character. far as concerns the

-sufficiency of

deposit.

Banks-procedure to compel

turning over of

deposits

bank; as quasi in rem, so far as concerns the depositors; and as strictly in rem, so far as concerns other claimants.*

Seizure of the deposit is effected by the personal service made upon the bank. Provident Inst. for Sav. v. Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed.

4 Compare Newell v. Norton, 3 Wall. 257, 18 L. ed. 271; The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 25 L. ed. 982; Waples, Proceedings in Rem. 1882, pp. 758-768.

« AnteriorContinuar »