Case ID: sw_210/html/0282-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HODGES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AUSTIN, Com’r of Insurance and Banking, v. YATES et al.
    (No. 2044.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    Feb. 28, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, March 20, 1919.)
    Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; Daniel Walker, Judge.
    Suit by Charles O. Austin, Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, against Mrs. J. W. Yates and another. From that portion of the judgment denying recovery against defendant na&ed, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and rendered.
    E. H. Prendergast, of Marshall, and Edwin Lacy, of Longview, for appellant.-
    Marsh & Mcllwaine, of Tyler, and F. J. Mc-Cord and Young & Stinchcomb, all of Longview, for appellees. '
   HODGES, J.

On June 29, 1917, Chas. O. Austin, as commissioner of insurance and banking, filed this suit against G. A. Bodenheim, a stockholder in the People’s State Bank of Long-view, and Mrs. J. W. Yates, a former stockholder in that bank, seeking to recover the sum of $2,000, the par value of stock then held by Bodenheim in the above-named bank. The proof showed that Mrs. Yates owned this stock on the 8th of December, 1915, and on that date sold and transferred it to Bodenheim. On the 18th of August, 1916, the bank became insolvent and it’s affairs were placed in the hands of the commissioner of insurance and banking. In a trial before the court judgment was rendered in favor of the commissioner against Bodenheim for the full amount sued for, but a recovery against Mrs. Yates was denied. It is from that portion of the judgment that the commissioner has appealed.

The court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law which are the same as will be found in the case of Austin v. T. D. Campbell et al., 210 S. W. 277, this day decided by this court.

For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment in favor of Mrs. Yates will be reversed, and judgment will be here rendered against her for the full amount sued for, together with interest and costs.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The motion for a rehearing in this case is overruled, for the reasons stated in the companion case of Austin v. Campbell et al., 210 S. W. 277, this day decided by this court. ■