Hood Ex Rel. United Bank & Trust Co. v. Progressive Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Hood Ex Rel. United Bank & Trust Co. v. Progressive Stores, Inc., 182 S.E. 694 (N.C. 1935)
209 N.C. 36; 1935 N.C. LEXIS 14
PER CURIAM.

Hood Ex Rel. United Bank & Trust Co. v. Progressive Stores, Inc.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

N. O. Code, 1935 (Micbie), section 446, in part, is as follows: “Every action must be prosecuted in tbe name of tbe real party in interest,” etc.

Section 469 : “In all other cases tbe action must be tried in tbe county in which tbe plaintiffs or tbe defendants, or any of them, reside at its commencement; or if none of tbe defendants reside in tbe State, then in tbe county in which tbe plaintiffs, or any of them, reside; and if none of tbe parties reside in tbe State, then tbe action may be tried in any county which tbe plaintiff designates in bis summons and complaint, subject to tbe power of tbe court to change tbe place of trial, in tbe cases provided by statute.”

Section 218 (c) (7) is, in part: “Upon taking possession of tbe assets and business of any bank by tbe commissioner of banks, tbe commissioner of banks, or tbe duly appointed agent, is authorized to collect all moneys due such bank, and to do such other acts as are necessary to conserve its assets and property, and shall proceed to liquidate tbe affairs thereof, as hereinafter provided. Tbe commissioner of banks, or the duly appointed agent, shall collect all debts due and claims belonging to such bcmh, by suit, if necessaryetc. (Italics ours.)

Tbe liquidating agent was a resident of Guilford County, N. 0., and tbe statute, supra, gave him tbe right to institute tbe suit. Tbe United Bank and Trust Company, when it closed its doors, was doing a banking business in Guilford County, and tbe liquidating agent ex necessitate *38 was there to close up the affairs of the insolvent bank. The pledge of defendants’ note by United Bank and Trust Company as collateral to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation does not militate against the liquidating agent being a party plaintiff. We think, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the pledgor and pledgee are both interested in the action and necessary parties to it. The note in controversy was assigned as collateral to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks of the State of North Carolina, Ex Rel. THE UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; A. G. SMALL, Liquidating Agent of THE UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (W. P. DYER, JR., Substituted for A. G. SMALL), and RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, v. PROGRESSIVE STORES, INC., R. E. BOBBITT, R. T. HOWARD, and DEWEY H. COOPER
Status
Published