Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WOODRING, SECRETARY OF WAR, et al. v. WARDELL, RECEIVER, 1940 — 309 U.S. 527 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
WOODRING, SECRETARY OF WAR, et al. v. WARDELL, RECEIVER
309 U.S. 52784 L. Ed. 908·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the disposition of this case.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WOODRING, SECRETARY OF WAR, et al. v. WARDELL, RECEIVER.
No. 5.
Argued October 10, 11, 1939.
Decided March 25, 1940.
Assistant Attorney General Shea, with whom Solicitor General Jackson and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney were on the brief, for petitioners.
Messrs. Brice Clageit and George P. Barse, with whom Messrs. Charles E. Wainwright and George B. Springston were on the brief, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Frankfurter]
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of. the Court.
This is a companion case to Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, ante, p. 517. The District National Bank pledged some of its assets to secure deposits made by the Secretary of War on behalf of the Panama Canal Zone. The Bank became insolvent in 1933, and the pledged assets were sold. Respondent, the Bank’s! receiver, brought this action to recover that part of the proceeds which represented an amount in excess of dividends paid to the ordinary depositors. The District Court held that the pledges were ultra vires and gave judgment for the respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 69 App. D. C. 280; 100 F. 2d 690.
For the reasons stated in. Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, ante, we are of opinion that the pledges given by the Bank were valid, and- that the .judgment below should be
Reversed.
[DISSENT — The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McReynolds,- and Mr. Justice Roberts,]
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McReynolds,- and Mr. Justice Roberts,
for the reasons set forth in their dissenting opinion in Inland Waterways Corp. v. Young, ante, p. 525, dissent here.
Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the disposition of this case.