Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New Hampshire Bankers Ass'n v. Nelson

N.H. Bankers Ass'n v. Nelson, 460 F.2d 307 (1st Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-05-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellants, national and state banks and a bankers’ association, challenge that part of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 390:13 which prohibits any bank from advertising or circularizing the fact that it is authorized to act as an executor. The national banks and the association rely principally on the ground that the New Hampshire statute is repugnant to 12 U.S.C. § 92a, which authorizes national banks to act as executors under certain circumstances. Additionally, all of the appellants assert due process and equal protection claims. We affirm on the basis of the thoughtful opinion below, 336 F.Supp. 1330 (D.N.H.1972), but add a brief comment as to the claimed repugnancy.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed New Hampshire Bankers Ass'n v. Nelson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
NEW HAMPSHIRE BANKERS ASSOCIATION v. NELSON,460 F.2d 307(1st Cir. 1972)
NEW HAMPSHIRE BANKERS ASSOCIATION ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JAMES W.
NELSON, BANK COMMISSIONER FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND WARREN B.
RUDMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-1049.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard May 2, 1972.
Decided May 24, 1972.
William S. Green, Manchester, N. H., with whom Jon S. Richardson and Sheehan, Phinney, Bass Green, Manchester, N. H., were on brief, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Donald W. Stever, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Appellants, national and state banks and a bankers' association, challenge that part of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 390:13 which prohibits any bank from advertising or circularizing the fact that it is authorized to act as an executor. The national banks and the association rely principally on the ground that the New Hampshire statute is repugnant to12 U.S.C. § 92a, which authorizes national banks to act as executors under certain circumstances. Additionally, all of the appellants assert due process and equal protection claims. We affirm on the basis of the thoughtful opinion below,336 F. Supp. 1330(D.N.H. 1972), but add a brief comment as to the claimed repugnancy.

[2] Appellants' reliance on Franklin National Bank of Franklin Square v. New York,347 U.S. 373,74 S.Ct. 550,98 L.Ed. 767(1954), is misplaced. The grant of federal authority there at issue, the power to receive savings deposits,12 U.S.C. § 24, Seventh, made no reference to state law, a circumstance which the Court emphasized by contrasting it with several other sections making explicit reference to state law.347 U.S. at 378n. 7,74 S.Ct. 550.See alsoFirst National Bank in Plant City, Fla. v. Dickinson,396 U.S. 122,90 S.Ct. 337,24 L.Ed. 2d 312(1969); First National Bank ofPage 308Logan, Utah v. Walker Bank Trust Co.,385 U.S. 252,87 S.Ct. 492,17 L.Ed. 2d 343(1966). Although § 92a(a) had not been passed whenFranklin National Bankwas decided, and could not therefore have been included in the Court's footnote, it resembles the sections referred to there in that it conditions the right to act as executor on state law. Implicit in the state's power to proscribe national banks from acting as executors, we think, is the power to permit them to act as executors while precluding them, in a nondiscriminatory way, from advertising that fact.

[3] The judgment is affirmed.