First National Bank of Selma v. Colby
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. B. L. Whelan. The facts are stated in the opinion. Does the process of attachment lie against this bank under the circumstances of this case ? That is the . question to be first settled. We say it does not lie for three reasons : 1st. The proceeding by attachment is statutory, is in derogation of the common law, and there is no law of Congress or of the State giving such a remedy against a national bank.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. B. L. Whelan. The facts are stated in the opinion. Does the process of attachment lie against this bank under the circumstances of this case ? That is the . question to be first settled. We say it does not lie for three reasons : 1st. The proceeding by attachment is statutory, is in derogation of the common law, and there is no law of Congress or of the State giving such a remedy against a national bank. Drake on Attach. § 4, p. 7. It is neither, strictly speaking, a foreign or domestic corporation as contemplated by our statutes, but…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
On the 17th day of April, in the year 1867, the appellee, Oolby, commenced an action at law by attachment against the First National Bank of Selma, for the sum of forty-eight hundred dollars. This attachment was regularly issued from the circuit court of Dallas county, in this State, and regularly executed by a levy on lands belonging to said bank, on the day of its issuance. The *443bill of exceptions taken at the trial shows, that said bank ceased to do business on the 16th day of April, 1867, and had, 6n the 15th day of the same month, refused and failed to pay a draft of the United States for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Ableman v. BoothSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Mumma v. Potomac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Paschall v. WhitsettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Impac Limited, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Lindsey v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of DetroitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Harvey v. AllenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1879
- Territory of Alaska v. First Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927
- Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Impac Limited, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977