The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
(COPY) FEDERAL RESERVE BAH OF RICHMOND X-6669 f. 0 & J u l y 29, 1930 Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. A t t e n t i o n ; Mr. Walter Wyatt, General Counsel. Dear Mr. Wyatt: If you have not seen t h e case of Hofheimer v. Seaboard and C i t i zens National Bank of Norfolk", decided by the Supreme Court of V i r g i n i a June 12, 1930, and r e p o r t e d i n 163 S. E. Page 657, you w i l l f i n d the opinion interesting. One Hofheimer executed a w i l l nominating the C i t i z e n s Bank of Norfolk a s h i s executor. This bank was a s t a t e bank and t r u s t company. Later i t merged or consolidated with the Seaboard National Bank of Norfolk in t h e manner p r e s c r i b e d by the Act of Congress. A f t e r the c o n s o l i d a t i o n Hofheimer died, and the consolidated bank, known a s the Seaboard and Citizens National Bank of Norfolk, o f f e r e d the w i l l f o r p r o b a t e and moved to q u a l i f y a s executor. The lower court p e r m i t t e d the bank to q u a l i f y along with an i n d i v i d u a l who was named as co-executor. An appeal was taken and so much of the order a s p e r m i t t e d the bank to q u a l i f y was r e v e r s e d . The d e c i s i o n , of course, r e s t s l a r g e l y upon ex p a r t e WorChester County National Bank, 279 U. S. 347, but our court holds t h a t the V i r g i n i a s t a t u t e s by i m p l i c a t i o n sanction a c o n s o l i d a t i o n between a s t a t e bank and n a t i o n a l bank and t h a t the powers of the c o n s o l i d a t e d bank a r e c o n t r o l l e d by the Federal s t a t u t e s . The court appears to assume t h a t i f the t e s t a t o r had died and the s t a t e bank had q u a l i f i e d b e f o r e the c o n s o l i d a t i o n , the n a t i o n a l bank under t h e Federal s t a t u t e would have succeeded to the powers of the s t a t e bank a s executor, but d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the p o s i t i o n of an executor and the p o s i t i o n of one who has merely been nominated as executor in a w i l l which i s wholly without e f f e c t during the l i f e t i m e of the t e s t a t o r . In o t h e r words, the court h o l d s t h a t the t e s t a t o r nominated a s executor a person who ceased to e x i s t b e f o r e t h e w i l l became o p e r a t i v e , and the mere designation was not a l e g a l r i g h t which p a s s e d to t h e successor c o r p o r a t i o n . The V i r g i n i a case decides only the r a t h e r close p o i n t a s to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e National Bank Act. I t s chief i n t e r e s t l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t the court seems to assume t h a t in t h e WorChester County National Bank case the r i g h t of the n a t i o n a l bank to continue to administer the e s t a t e was undisputed and the only question was whether or not i t would be compelled to go through t h e f o r m a l i t y of a r e q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The d e c i s i o n , however, i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g i f any attempt i s made to amend the n a t i o n a l banking laws so as to c o u n t e r a c t the Worchester County National Bank d e c i s i o n . If any such amendment i s made, i t might be a d v i s a b l e to cover the d i s t i n c t i o n which 9 3 Mr. Walter Wyatt, Federal Heserve Board, Washington, B.C. X-6669 -3- J u l y 29, 1930 the court has observed between a succession to an e x i s t i n g power and the succession to a mere expectancy based upon the designation of an executor in t h e w i l l of one who i s s t i l l a l i v e . I have not enclosed a copy of the opinion because I am under the impression t h a t you have t h e South Eastern Reporter in your l i b r a r y . If f o r any reason t h e opinion i s not a v a i l a b l e to you, I can e a s i l y send you a copy. Very t r u l y yours, (Signed) M. G. Wallace, Counsel. MW L O
@FedFRASER