McNair v. Knott
Headline: 1930 banking law validated earlier bank pledges protecting county and state funds, allowing local governments to enforce collateral agreements banks made before the law and limiting receivers’ power to cancel them.
Holding:
- Validates prior collateral agreements that protect public deposits in national banks.
- Lets counties enforce pledged assets against bank receivers.
- Reduces receivers’ ability to cancel earlier security pledges.
Summary
Background
In 1929–1930, the First National Bank of Perry agreed with Taylor County officials to pledge collateral to protect county funds they deposited in the bank. The bank later closed (October 18, 1930). The bank’s receiver at first paid income from the pledged securities to the county but in 1935 sued to cancel the pledge as beyond the bank’s legal power when made. The lower federal courts dismissed the receiver’s suit, and the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the 1930 National Bank Enabling Amendment — which allowed national banks to give security for public money — was meant to make earlier, technically unauthorized pledge agreements enforceable. Looking at the amendment’s language, congressional committee reports, the longstanding practice of bank regulators, and the need to protect public funds, the Court concluded Congress intended the law to validate past pledges. The Court therefore held the contested pledge became enforceable as of the amendment’s effective date.
Real world impact
The ruling means local governments and other public entities can enforce collateral that national banks promised before June 25, 1930. It limits a receiver’s ability to cancel those earlier security agreements and makes it easier for counties to recover from pledged assets. The decision applies from the date the enabling law took effect and so affects past contracts retroactively.
Dissents or concurrances
A Justice wrote separately to say the judgment could rest on the simpler ground that both parties treated the pledge as binding after the amendment and acted accordingly, but he agreed the result should be affirmation.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?