Summary
In Douglass v. Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island, 30 Conn. Sup. 117, 303 A.2d 359 (1972) the court held that "doing business" in a state does not in itself manifest a bank's intent to waive its venue privilege.
Summary of this case from D. Nelsen Sons, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insur. Inc.Opinion
File No. 041276
Since the defendant as a national bank could not be sued against its will except in certain courts, of which the court here was not one, and since there was no merit to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant, by doing business in Connecticut, had waived its right to challenge venue, its plea in abatement was sustained.
Memorandum filed November 15, 1972
Memorandum on plea in abatement. Plea sustained.
Richard E. Gruskin, of New London, for the plaintiff.
Conway, Londregan, Leuba McNamara, of New London, specially appeared for the defendant.
The subject matter of this action is an inter vivos trust naming the defendant, The Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island, as trustee. The defendant has appeared specially and filed a plea in abatement on the ground that it is not located in the county or city of New London, Connecticut, and was not so located at the time of the commencement of the action. The plaintiff's answer to this plea does not controvert this allegation and it must be accepted as a fact. Practice Book § 116.
It is now settled law that suits against a national bank against its will can be brought only in those courts which are designated in 12 U.S.C. § 94. Mercantile National Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U.S. 555, 10 Am. Jur.2d, Banks, § 836; see note 10 A.L.R. Fed. 940, 943 § 2.
"VENUE OF SUITS. Actions and proceedings against any association under this chapter may be had in any district or Territorial court of the United States held within the district in which such association may be established, or in any State, county or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located having jurisdiction in similar cases."
It is admitted that this court is not within the statutory venue requirement, but the plaintiff claims that the defendant waived its right to challenge venue by doing business within the state of Connecticut. The facts before this court do not, however, resemble the factual situation in which other courts have found waiver. Buffum v. Chase National Bank, 192 F.2d 58, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 944; note, 1 A.L.R.3d 904; cf. Lichtenfels v. North Carolina National Bank, 260 N.C. 146.