Appeal, No. 11, May T., 1963, from order of Pennsylvania Department of Banking, June 22, 1962, in case of Blairsville National Bank v. Robert L. Myers, Jr., Secretary of Banking, E. James Trimarchi, Jr., Secretary of Commonwealth, and Conemaugh Valley Bank. Order affirmed.
John Y. Scott, with him William M. Ruddock, and Fisher, Ruddock & Simpson, for protestant, appellant.
Frederick G. Antoun, Deputy Attorney General, with him Richard M. Woodcock, Assistant Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Secretary of Banking, Department of Banking, and Secretary of Commonwealth, appellees.
David R. Tomb, Jr., for applicant, appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL
This is an appeal by the Blairsville National Bank protesting the action of the Department of Banking in approving Articles of Incorporation for the Conemaugh Valley Bank.*fn1 The proposed bank is to be located at 57 East Market Street, Blairsville, Pennsylvania, almost directly across the street from the Blairsville National Bank. Five banks, whose principal offices are in Indiana County, protested against the approval of
a charter for Conemaugh but Blairsville National Bank was the only protestant to appear at the hearings held by the Secretary of Banking, or thereafter appeal to this Court.
All the procedural and technical requirements of the Banking Code of 1933,*fn2 as amended, and of the Department of Banking Code of 1933,*fn3 as amended, were followed and need not be recited here.
This appeal is in the nature of a broad certiorari: Western Pennsylvania National Bank v. Myers, 407 Pa. 298, 180 A.2d 423, and cases therein cited; and we consider the entire record to determine whether the applicable tests for sustaining the action of the Department of Banking have been met.
In Philadelphia Savings Fund Society v. Myers, 406 Pa. 438, 179 A.2d 209, the Court succinctly stated the applicable tests (p. 441): "A decision of the Department of Banking or of the Banking Board will be sustained unless it is based upon facts or conclusions which are not adequately supported by the evidence, or it committed a clear abuse of discretion, or exceeded its ...