After the decision in this case reported in 256 U.S. 350, 41 Sup. Ct. 499, 65 L. Ed. 983, an answer was filed which denied, in large part, the allegations of the bill. Then, by an amended answer, the Federal Reserve Bank disclaimed any intention of demanding payment in cash, when presenting checks at the banks, and averred its willingness to accept payment in drafts, either on the drawee's Atlanta correspondent or on any other solvent bank, if collectible at par. The District Court heard the case upon the evidence. It found that the Federal Reserve Bank was not inspired by any ulterior purpose to coerce or to injure any nonmember bank which refused to remit at par. It found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain any charge that the Federal Reserve Bank was exercising its rights so as to injure or oppress plaintiff banks. And it found, specifically, that the evidence did not sustain the charge that the Federal Reserve Bank accumulated checks upon nonmenber country banks until they reached a large amount and then caused the checks to be presented for payment over the counter, in order to compel plaintiff banks to keep in their vaults so much cash that they would be obliged either to agree to remit at par or to go out of business. With regard to publication on the par list of the names of nonassenting banks, the District Court held that the evidence did not justify a finding that such publication was made in order to injure or oppress plaintiff banks. But it was of opinion that insertion of their names might lead to the belief that the plaintiff banks had agreed to remit at par. An injunction was, therefore, granted against inclusion of their names on the par list. The relief sought was in all other respects denied. The decree left the Federal Reserve Bank free to publish that it would make collection at par of checks upon any bank in any town, thus including those in which plaintiffs had their respective places of business. 280 Fed. 940. These findings were approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the decree was affirmed. 284 Fed. 424.
The case is here on an appeal taken by the plaintiffs. The evidence was conflicting. No adequate reason is shown why the concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts should not be accepted by us. Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co., 248 U.S. 139, 145, 39 Sup. Ct. 53, 63 L. Ed. 170, 1 A. L. R. 1522. Whether on the undisputed facts plaintiffs were entitled to additional relief is the main question for decision. In order to decide that question it is necessary to consider the course of business formerly prevailing and the changes wrought by the attempt to introduce universal par clearance and collection of checks through the Federal Reserve Banks.