Appeal from the Order of the Department of Banking in case of In Re: Application of American Bank and Trust Company of Pennsylvania to Establish a Branch Office at the Northeast Corner of East Main and Elm Streets, Kutztown, Berks County, Pennsylvania.
William M. Young, Jr., with him Francis B. Haas, Jr., and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant, Farmers Bank.
Robert L. Rubendall, with him William H. Wood and Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas and Wood, for appellant, Kutztown Bank.
Marvin M. Witofsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Edward L. Symons, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Raymond Pearlstine, with him Rosemary M. Flannery and Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig & Garrity, for intervening appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 455]
Farmers Bank of Kutztown and The Kutztown National Bank, Appellants (Farmers and Kutztown National) appeal an order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Banking (Department), dated May 7, 1974, approving the application of American Bank and Trust Company, Intervening Appellee (American) for a letter of authority to establish a branch office in Kutztown, Berks County, pursuant to the Banking Code of 1965, Act of November 30, 1965, P.L. 847, 7 P.S. § 101 et seq.
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 456]
On June 2, 1972, American applied to Department for a letter of authority to establish a branch office in Kutztown. Farmers, Kutztown National and the Bernville Bank protested. Without hearing this application was denied.
American then filed a reapplication, at issue in the present appeal. Farmers' and Kutztown National protested. Bernville did not. Hearings were held on July 25 and August 2, 1973. On May 7, 1974, Department approved the reapplication. Kutztown National and Farmers' sought reconsideration, which prayer was rejected. They appealed Department's order to us.
Appellants, in four arguments, contend that Department erred in its order approving the letter of authority in that
1) no substantial evidence exists to support the finding by Department that there is a need ...