Article Text
COURTS ONLY HAVE POWER TO SELECT BANKS' RECEIVERS
Legislature Held to Have Overstepped Powers in Enacting a Law.
Declaring that it is the imperative duty of the judicial department of government to protect its jurisdiction at the boundaries of power fixed by the constitution and that the naming of state bank receivers is a judicial function which cannot be exercised or controlled by the governor or legislature, the supreme court Saturday upheld the action of District Judge Carter at Morrill in refusing to name E. H. Luikart, secretary of trade and commerce, as receiver for the Mitchell State bank, Irrigators State bank of Bridgeport, Lyman State bank, American State bank of Scottsbluff, Nebraska State bank of Bridgeport, State Bank of Minatare, and Bank of Bayard. Justices Paine and Day dissented.
The court, in an opinion written by Justice Rose, says that a legislative act providing that the secretary of trade and commerce shall be the sole receiver of all insolvent state banks amounts to no more than a judicial proceeding, properly pending in a court of equity for the liquidation of a bank, than a legislative recommendation to the judiciary to appoint him, as otherwise the enactment would be an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power.
Judge Carter Named Torgeson.
Judge Carter was the only district judge who refused to name Luikart, when the latter succeeded Bliss. He appointed A. E. Torgeson, who had been assistant receiver under Bliss, on the ground that having had actual charge of the liquidation of these seven banks he was in a better position to serve all interests than Luikart, who must necessarily name some one to handle their liquidation.
The court points out in its decision that the statutes nowhere provide for the liquidation of state banks without invoking the judicial power of the state, and the legislature has never granted to any executive officer, administrative board, department or tribunal
(Continued on Page 8.)