## Facts

- West Side National Bank applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for a national bank charter under federal banking statutes and regulations.
- The Comptroller conducted a field investigation and, consistent with agency practice, notified nearby competitor banks and solicited their views.
- Webster Groves Trust Company opposed the application in writing and requested a formal hearing allowing participation, evidence presentation, and cross-examination of the applicant.
- The Deputy Comptroller met with objecting banks and accepted a written protest, but did not grant a formal adversary hearing.
- The Comptroller approved the charter without a formal hearing.
- Webster Groves and other nearby banks sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to cancel the charter and require a formal hearing; the district court entered judgment for the Comptroller and West Side.
- Webster Groves alone appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a competitor bank is entitled, by statute or due process, to a formal adversary hearing in the Comptroller’s consideration of a national bank charter application.
2. Whether the federal banking statutes or implementing regulations create an enforceable procedural right for competitors to obtain such a hearing.
3. Whether the Comptroller’s process and ultimate approval were unlawful as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion due to the absence of trial-type procedures.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the Comptroller and West Side National Bank.
- The Comptroller was not required to provide a formal, trial-type adversary hearing at the request of a competitor bank during charter consideration.
- The governing banking statutes and regulations did not mandate such a hearing for competitors.
- The procedures used—investigation plus receipt and consideration of written and oral objections—were legally sufficient.
- Competitor banks’ interest in avoiding additional competition did not constitute a protected interest requiring constitutional due process hearing rights in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Absent an express statutory requirement, an agency’s licensing or chartering decision need not be preceded by a formal adversary hearing with cross-examination rights.
- Competitors affected by increased competition generally lack a statutory or constitutional entitlement to trial-type participation in another entity’s chartering process.
- When Congress has not prescribed adjudicatory procedures, agencies retain discretion to use informal investigative methods, subject to review for arbitrariness, caprice, or abuse of discretion.
- Due process hearing requirements are triggered by deprivation of a recognized liberty or property interest; a competitor’s desire to prevent new competition is not, by itself, such an interest.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Comptroller may approve a national bank charter after an investigation and consideration of objections without conducting a formal adversary hearing requested by competitor banks, because neither the governing statutes nor due process grants competitors a right to trial-type procedures in the chartering process.


Webster Groves Tr. Co. v. Saxon, 370 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1966)