TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peoples Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank

PEOPLES BANK v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO v. PEOPLES BANK

Peoples Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 149 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1945)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 29, 1945
Docket
No. 11002
Judges
Bone, Garrecht, Mathews
Citations
149 F.2d 8501945 U.S. App. LEXIS 3387

Opinion of the Court — Garrecht

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.

The question here is whether this court has jurisdiction.

The Peoples Bank brought suit against the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Henry F. Grady, Federal Reserve Agent, to annul and enjoin the enforcement of a condition of membership in the Federal Reserve System required by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In an opinion dated November 17, 1944, the'lower court held that it did not have jurisdiction as the indispensable party, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, was not properly before the court, and there was no action against the other defendants. D.C., 58 F. Supp. 25 . An order was filed the same day, granting motions to dismiss and denying motions for summary judgment. The judgment itself was filed January 8, 1945, dismissing the cause at plaintiff’s cost. Both the Peoples Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank appealed from the Order of November 17, 1944, after judgment was entered. 1

The appellee, Henry F. Grady, and the cross-appellant, the Federal Reserve Bank, have filed motions to dismiss the appeal of the Peoples Bank. This court is of the opinion that both appeals should be dismissed. The order of November 17, 1944, is not an appealable order within the meaning of § 128 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 225. City and County of San Francisco v. McLaughlin, 9 Cir., 9 F.2d 930 ; Wright v. Gibson et al., 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 865, 866 .

This rule clearly applies to the instant case as the lower court in denying a motion to correct the Order of November 17, 1944, to show that it was a final disposition of the case, said:

“ * * * the Order of Motions, dated and entered herein on the 17th day of November, 1944, does not contain any error therein arising from oversight or omission or otherwise, that the said Order on Motions, at the time the same was made and entered, was not regarded by the Court as *851 a final order, judgment, or decree, that the said Order on Motions was, and is, a memorandum order only, and that the Judgment Dismissing Action on Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, Ordering Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Stricken, and denying Motions for Summary Judgment, approved as to form by plaintiff’s counsel as provided by Rule 5(d) of the Rules of Practice of this Court, signed and entered herein on the 8th day of January, 1945, was, and is, the final judgment rendered by this court in the said action.”

The lower court intended to enter a memorandum order on November 17, 1944. The appellant and cross-appellant intended to and did appeal from that order of November 17, 1944. The Peoples Bank appeal is taken from “that part of the Order of the above entitled court, Honorable Michael J. Roche, Judge presiding, dated the 17th day of November, 1944,” which part grants the motions to dismiss. The fact that the Peoples Bank attempted to correct the Order of November 17, 1944 is evidence of their intention to appeal from that order and not the judgment. In appealing from that part of the order denying summary judgment, the Federal Reserve Bank in describing the order itself used the very same language in its notice of appeal as did the Peoples Bank.

No appeal was ever taken from the judgment entered January 8, 1945.

Dismissed.

The Notice of Appeal of Peoples Bank was dated December 16, 1944, but was not filed until January 15.1945.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1950: 31953: 11954: 119502026peak 1950 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.180 F.2d 8 (9th Cir. 1950)
  2. United States v. State of Arizona206 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1953)
  3. Turnbull v. Cyr184 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1950)
  4. Blanco v. United States184 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1950)
  5. Libby, McNeill & Libby, a Corporation v. Alaska Industrial Board and Linda Miriam Johnson215 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Libby, McNeill & Libby, a Corporation v. Alaska Industrial Board and Linda Miriam Johnson215 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1954)
  2. United States v. State of Arizona206 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1953)
  3. Blanco v. United States184 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1950)
  4. Turnbull v. Cyr184 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1950)
  5. Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.180 F.2d 8 (9th Cir. 1950)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Wright v. Gibson, 128 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1942) 27
Peoples Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 58 F. Supp. 25 (N.D. Cal. 1944) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list