## Facts

- A Utah statute generally barred state banks from opening new branches except by taking over an existing bank that had operated for at least five years.
- A national bank in Logan, Utah sought Comptroller approval to open a new in-city branch without acquiring an existing bank.
- A different national bank sought similar approval to open a new in-city branch in Ogden, Utah, also without acquiring an existing bank.
- The Comptroller of the Currency approved the applications and issued certificates authorizing the proposed branches.
- Competing state-chartered banks challenged the approvals, arguing that 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) incorporates Utah’s branching conditions, including the five-year takeover requirement.
- In the Logan dispute, the district court upheld the new branch, but the court of appeals reversed, holding national banks must comply with the state takeover condition; the related Ogden disputes were resolved consistently.

## Issues

1. Whether 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) permits a national bank to establish an in-city *de novo* branch whenever state law allows any branch banking, or instead only when the branch would be permitted for state banks under the state’s terms and conditions.
2. Whether the Comptroller’s approval authority under § 36(c) can authorize a national bank branch that state law would not permit a state bank to establish.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgments requiring compliance with Utah’s branching restrictions.
- The Court held that § 36(c) allows national banks to establish branches only to the extent, and on the conditions, that state law “expressly” authorizes branching for state banks.
- Because Utah permitted branching only through acquisition of an existing bank of at least five years’ standing, the proposed *de novo* branches were unauthorized.
- The Comptroller’s certificates could not validate branches that exceeded the branching authority defined by § 36(c) as measured by state law.

## Legal Principles

- Section 36(c) is designed to place national and state banks on “competitive equality” regarding branch banking.
- “Expressly authorized to State banks by the law of the State” incorporates substantive state-law limitations and conditions on branching, not merely the existence of any branching permission.
- A national bank’s branching power under § 36(c) cannot exceed what state law would permit for a state-chartered bank in the same circumstances.
- The Comptroller’s administrative approval authority under § 36(c) operates within, and cannot override, state-law branching conditions incorporated into the federal standard.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted 12 U.S.C. § 36(c) to require national banks to satisfy all state-law conditions governing state bank branching, preserving parity between national and state banks and invalidating Comptroller-approved *de novo* branches barred by Utah’s takeover-only rule.


First Nat'l Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Tr. Co., 385 U.S. 252 (1966)