.
[311] Otis _v._ Parker, 187 U.S. 606 (1903).
[312] Brodnax _v._ Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 (1911).
[313] House _v._ Mayes, 219 U.S. 270 (1911).
[314] Rast _v._ Van Deman & L. Co., 240 U.S. 342 (1916); Tanner _v._
Little, 240 U.S. 369 (1916); Pitney _v._ Washington, 240 U.S. 387
(1916).
[315] Noble State Bank _v._ Haskell, 219 U.S. 104 (1911); Shallenberger
_v._ First State Bank, 219 U.S. 114 (1911); Assaria State Bank _v._
Dolley, 219 U.S. 121 (1911); Abie State Bank _v._ Bryan, 282 U.S. 765
(1931).
[316] Provident Inst. for Savings _v._ Malone, 221 U.S. 660 (1911);
Anderson National Bank _v._ Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944).
When a bank conservator appointed pursuant to a new statute has all the
functions of a receiver under the old law, one of which is the
enforcement on behalf of depositors of stockholders' liability, which
liability the conservator can enforce as cheaply as could a receiver
appointed under the pre-existing statute, it cannot be said that the new
statute, in suspending the right of a depositor to have a receiver
appointed, arbitrarily deprives a depositor of his remedy or destroys
his property without due process of law. The depositor has no property
right in any particularly form of remedy.--Gibbes _v._ Zimmerman, 290
U.S. 326 (1933).
[317] Doty _v._ Love, 295 U.S. 64 (1935).
[318] Farmers & M. Bank _v._ Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U.S. 649 (1923).
[319] Griffith _v._ Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563 (1910).
[320] Mutual Loan Co. _v._ Martell, 222 U.S. 225 (1911).
[321] La Tourette _v._ McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919); Stipcich _v._
Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 277 U.S. 311, 320 (1928).
[322] German Alliance Ins. Co. _v._ Lewis, 233 U.S. 389 (1914).
[323] O'Gorman and Young _v._ Hartford Insur. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931).
[324] Nutting _v._ Massachusetts, 185 U.S. 553, 556 (1902),
distinguishing Allgeyer _v._ Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897). _See also_
Hooper _v._ California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895).
[325] Daniel _v._ Family Ins. Co., 336 U.S. 220 (1949).
[326] Osborn _v._ Ozlin, 310 U.S. 53, 68-69 (1940). Dissenting from the
conclusion, Justice Roberts declared that the plain effect of the
Virginia law is to compel a nonresident to pay a Virginia resident for
services which the latter does not in fact render.
[327] California Auto. Assn. _v._ Maloney, 341 U.S. 105 (1951).
[328] Allgeyer _v._ Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897).
[329] New York L. Ins. Co. _v._ Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 (1918)
|