
    GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks of the State of North Carolina, ex rel. THE UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; A. G. SMALL, Liquidating Agent of THE UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (W. P. DYER, JR., Substituted for A. G. SMALL), and RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, v. PROGRESSIVE STORES, INC., R. E. BOBBITT, R. T. HOWARD, and DEWEY H. COOPER.
    (Filed 11 December, 1935.)
    1. Venue A d — Action on note held, properly instituted in county of residence of liquidating agent of insolvent payee hank.
    An action on a note by tbe Commissioner of Banks and tbe liquidating agent of an insolvent bank, the payee of the note, and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the pledgee of the note, is properly brought in the county in which the insolvent bank is situate and of which the liquidating agent is a resident, and defendants’ motion for change of venue to the county of their residence is properly refused. N. C. Code, 446, 469, 218 (c) (7).
    2. Bills and Notes H a — Under facts of this case, pledgor and pledgee of note held entitled to maintain joint suit against makers.
    In an action on a note executed to a bank, the liquidating agent of the payee bank and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to which the note had been pledged as collateral security, may jointly sue the makers of the note.
    Appeal by defendants from McElroy, J., at April Term, 1935, of Guileord.
    Affirmed.
    Tbis was a civil action, beard before bis Honor, P. A. McElroy, judge, at tbe April Civil Term of Guilford Superior Court, 1935, upon a motion of tbe defendants for a change of venue.
    In February, 1933, tbe United Bank and Trust Company, a North Carolina banking corporation, with its principal place of business in tbe city of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina, closed its doors, and the management of tbe assets and affairs of the said bank was assumed, for tbe purpose of liquidation pursuant to tbe North Carolina banking laws, by Gurney P. Hood, Commissioner of Banks. At tbe time of tbe institution of tbis action, A. G. Small was tbe duly appointed, qualified, and acting liquidating agent of tbe said bank, and was a resident of Guilford County, North Carolina.
    Tbis suit was instituted upon a note executed by tbe defendants unto tbe United Bank and Trust Company in November, 1932, and by tbe said bank pledged to coplaintiff Reconstruction Finance Corporation as security for an indebtedness of tbe United Bank and Trust Company unto tbe said corporation, which said indebtedness at tbe time of tbe institution of tbis action exceeded tbe amount of tbe note involved in tbis suit.
    
      Subsequent to tbe commencement of this action, W. P. Dyer, Jr., was duly substituted as party plaintiff in behalf of A. G. Small, tbe said Dyer having been duly appointed and having qualified as successor liquidating agent to tbe said Small. W. P. Dyer, Jr., was at tbe time of tbe substitution as party plaintiff, and is at tbe present time, a resident of Guilford County, North Carolina. Eeconstruction Finance Corporation is a corporation created by tbe Congress of tbe United States, with its principal office in tbe city of Washington, D. 0., and with its principal North Carolina office in tbe city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.
    Under tbe facts as stated above, both tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Guilford County and subsequently tbe presiding judge were of tbe opinion that Guilford County was a proper venue for the trial of tbis cause, and, therefore, declined to grant tbe defendants’ motion for change of venue to Lee County, North Carolina, where tbe defendants reside.
    Tbe defendants excepted and assigned error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      Smith, Wharton ■& Hudgins for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Gavin & Jaclcson for defendants.
    
   Per Curiam.

N. O. Code, 1935 (Micbie), section 446, in part, is as follows: “Every action must be prosecuted in tbe name of tbe real party in interest,” etc.

Section 469 : “In all other cases tbe action must be tried in tbe county in which tbe plaintiffs or tbe defendants, or any of them, reside at its commencement; or if none of tbe defendants reside in tbe State, then in tbe county in which tbe plaintiffs, or any of them, reside; and if none of tbe parties reside in tbe State, then tbe action may be tried in any county which tbe plaintiff designates in bis summons and complaint, subject to tbe power of tbe court to change tbe place of trial, in tbe cases provided by statute.”

Section 218 (c) (7) is, in part: “Upon taking possession of tbe assets and business of any bank by tbe commissioner of banks, tbe commissioner of banks, or tbe duly appointed agent, is authorized to collect all moneys due such bank, and to do such other acts as are necessary to conserve its assets and property, and shall proceed to liquidate tbe affairs thereof, as hereinafter provided. Tbe commissioner of banks, or the duly appointed agent, shall collect all debts due and claims belonging to such bcmh, by suit, if necessaryetc. (Italics ours.)

Tbe liquidating agent was a resident of Guilford County, N. 0., and tbe statute, supra, gave him tbe right to institute tbe suit. Tbe United Bank and Trust Company, when it closed its doors, was doing a banking business in Guilford County, and tbe liquidating agent ex necessitate was there to close up the affairs of the insolvent bank. The pledge of defendants’ note by United Bank and Trust Company as collateral to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation does not militate against the liquidating agent being a party plaintiff. We think, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the pledgor and pledgee are both interested in the action and necessary parties to it. The note in controversy was assigned as collateral to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.  