Legal Opinion · Dissent

Impac Ltd. v. Third National Bank

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1976Published

1DissentBrock, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I do so most reluctantly because the majority opinion has reached a just result. It is my view, however, that the last clause of 12 U.S.C.A., § 91, absolutely forbids the issuance by a state court of a temporary injunction or any similar process against a national bank pri- or to entry of a final judgment or decree. That clause provides:. . ; and no attachment, injunction, or execution, shall be issued against such (national banking) association or its property before final judgment in any suit, action, or proceeding, in any State, county, or municipal court.”

As…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pacific National Bank v. MixterSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Freeman Manufacturing Co. v. National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  3. First Nat. Bank of Oakland v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Kemple v. Sec. First Nat'l Bank of L.A.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Miller Etc. v. Mercantile Nat. Bk. of Hammond, Etc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API