Whenever a certificate is transmitted to the Comptroller of the Currency, as provided in title 62 of the Revised Statutes, and the association transmitting the same notifies the Comptroller that all of its capital stock has been duly paid in, and that such association has complied with all the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes required to be complied with before an association shall be authorized to commence the business of banking, the Comptroller shall examine into the condition of such association, ascertain especially the amount of money paid in on account of its capital, the name and place of residence of each of its directors, and the amount of the capital stock of which each is the owner in good faith, and generally whether such association has complied with all the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes required to entitle it to engage in the business of banking; and shall cause to be made and attested by the oaths of a majority of the directors, and by the president or cashier of the association, a statement of all the facts necessary to enable the Comptroller to determine whether the association is lawfully entitled to commence the business of banking.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases, 1963–2018 · leading case:
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973).
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973).
· cites it 2× “See 12 U. S. C. §26 ; 5 U. S. C. § 557 . 3 Accordingly, the proper standard for judicial review of the Comptroller’s adjudications is not the “substantial evidence” test which is appropriate when reviewing findings made on a hearing record, 5 U.”
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U.S. 234 (1978).
· cites it 2× “We ruled there that the Comptroller could not deny a new bank a license to do businessa decision normally within his competence, see 12 U. S. C. §§ 26 , 27 once the Board approved a bank holding company transaction *251 that entailed formation of the new bank.”
Whitney Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Par. v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965).
· cites it 2× “12 U. S. C. § 26 (1958 ed.). That the action of the Comptroller is not final is made crystal-clear here where, assuming he should issue the desired authority to Whitney-Jefferson to open for business, it would be completely negated in the event that on review the Board's…”
Bank of Com. of Laredo v. City Nat'l Bank of Laredo, 484 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1973).
· cites it 3× “In reliance on the literal wording of the National Banking Act, see 12 U.S.C. §§ 26 , 27 (1970) , no court has held that the Comptroller must hold an adversary hearing in passing úpon bank charter applications, nor has any tribunal restricted the use of ex parte methods to…”
United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc., 418 U.S. 602 (1974).
“The Government contends that the formation of a new national bank is not governed by state-law restrictions on branching, citing 12 U. S. C. §§ 26 , 27. Appellees respond in essence that this would still constitute rosa branching in violation of state law.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 636 F. Supp. 921 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
“2d 106 (1973) (interpreting the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 26 ); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc.”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Maplewood v. Saxon, 249 F. Supp. 557 (E.D. Mo. 1965).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to the statute and regulations controlling such applications ( 12 U.S.C.A. § 26 ; 12 C.R.F. 4.2) a national bank examiner made an investigation concerning the application, and the plaintiffs learned of the submission of the application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.