American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford, 235 U.S. 496 (1915)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford, 235 U.S. 496 (1915)
American Water Softener Company v. Lankford
No. 418
Argued October 14, 15, 1914
Decided January 5, 1915
235 U.S. 496
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, ante, p. 235 U. S. 461.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
American Water Softener Co. v. Lankford, 235 U.S. 496 (1915) American Water Softener Company v. Lankford No. 418 Argued October 14, 15, 1914 Decided January 5, 1915 235 U.S. 496 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKAHOMA Syllabus Decided on authority of Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, ante, p. 235 U. S. 461. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 235 U. S. 497 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, on June 8, 1912, deposited with the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Sapulpa the sum of $3,337.50. The bank issued to appellant a certificate of deposit for the sum in the usual form. The bank, which, it is alleged, was entitled to the benefits of the Oklahoma bank guaranty law, subsequently failed, and was closed and taken possession of by appellees, composing the State Banking Board. The certificate of deposit was presented to the Banking Board and payment demanded out of the depositors' guaranty fund, or, if that fund should be insufficient, that there be issued to appellant a certificate of deposit. Both demands were refused, and this suit was instituted to enjoin compliance with one or the other of the demands. Motion was made by appellees to dismiss the bill on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action or of the persons of the defendants (appellees), the suit being one against the State of Oklahoma, without its consent, in violation of the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The motion was granted on the authority of the Court's opinion in Farish v. State Banking Board. This appeal was then prosecuted. The questions in this case are the same as those discussed and decided in Lankford et al., Composing the State Banking Board v. Platte Iron Works Company, Page 235 U. S. 498 ante, p. 235 U. S. 461, and on the authority of that case, the decree in this is Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE PITNEY, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE DAY, MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, and MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, dissenting: For reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Company, this day decided, ante, p. 235 U. S. 461, I am unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the Court in this case.
Search This Case
