Hon. 0. P. lookhart, ChaiZmrm

Board of Insuranoo h8ml88loner8 Au4tla, Teu8
Dear Sirs oplmlom R4. Q-3910 Roe Stat4 or uqr,other lrtoroetmd pai-@- aould mgge8t to oourt that a raooimr 'Ia8 r4mw4d.
Your request for an opinion of thlr dsprtmmt ir an f4llom:
'On **Haroh 30,**  1938, th4 ,Utateof T4za8,, 'aotlmg w amd through it8 ~duly4140~ t4d, qurllfisd amd aotlng **Attamoy** Gemoral, Ullll8m HoCrar, at th8 ,speolal **in8%6YlO4** 'ia **Z-4QU88,*** Of th4'k0ar&Of bWamo4 **,+6.d861O,I4~6** 1 flJ4d oPu.8 ,&. 59,771 in &,126th M8trlot'Court of lbavi8 COunty. The p4tlt&om alleged that the d4f4mdamt,Rapnblio Umderwrit4r4, an lmt8r-iaburamw aohango, wa8,in8olren+, and r8qu48t4d th4 

### l pp4lmtm4mt,4f a r404lvir. *On th8 ,4sa4day, a# order'wu 4nt4r4d app4imtlmg Curt18 I. Hill a8 **4qar%4** Beo~lver amd J&m Atkimsom a8 Attormrgfar th8 Reoeiyw.
**“On ‘**  **baocmbsr 17,**  **1938, a**  final judgp4n! **-6** 4akr4d, direotimg th4 lZ4o4lver and Attormsg th4WbOfor8 app4lmMd to liquidate th4 ,afhir8 of **th4 Pint.**  "On Maroh 24, 1941, th4 **R444i~4r** fil4d **hi8** SUppkK&al rqort,‘qa **fh8** affair8 of Oh4 R4oelvur8hip 8h4Wim& that virtually all a88ot8 had ?~44n +&uobd to oash, and that their va4 tha Q ham&for dlstribptlom the 4ua &f #23,426.66. It further 4h4w8d.that umpald prlwl~ olainu **‘ q4ubhbd**  **to** abut: **#6,ooO.00,** Pnd that **all&d** geasml olaimm amourkd t4 #176,150&O. "01 Maroh 26, 1941,'am ord8rra8 8mtorWumd8r th8 R4481?4r'8 appIicbio8 filed **%h4 8M**  dw gramtimg him authority t0 king am a8808P8Dt **8Ui 6g6im8** **‘ Y**  the maborl%4r8 of th4 defbriot flea la ord@r to raise 8uffioi4mt fumd4 to &my th4 approved olairrm, with **4xp4n848** whlohw4reto inoludo atbrm~18 fee8 of **26%** and aeawmWmb~8 fee8 4f 15% of th4 **grO88** reow4ny. 6uoh a ruit wa8 fil4d ly th8 Bewfv4r 48 July 30, 1941, bbimg BO
**. 86,362**  om the'DoOk8t of th4 98th M8W'lct Cerrrf **oi ‘** **hWd.8 COUUtye** 

**“ Arfele**  **60684,** VWmom'8 R.C.S., anaot4d w th4 46th Ingi8latiro In 1959~provld4s a n4w pro48dur4 for llquldatiom8 of th4 84I"t her8 OOSIO8X'm4de **Iji8+h4** 'belIsP of the wrlt4r that th4 fllimg of th4 abam nwmtlon8d **emu64 Ro.**  **93,369** omsjitute8 in foot a r4-opsmimg of a olrtu~~y'olO84d r4ooiv4nhlp. H4 18 further of ths opinion that 8UOh addltiomal admlnl+r&lo8 ef the affair8 of thla rsodv4rshlp a8 **may bs**  **n8488sup** cam be moro 4oOmdoally oomduotod, 4md with grat4r bnefitto all oomoerm4d, if th4y are handled und4rth8 authority of Ptiole 60680.Hon. 0. P. Lookhart, p4g4 2 (0.6910)

*Youropinionis, therefore, r88peatfUly requ48tsd a8 follorrc "1. Is there legalauthority for the interv4mtlon of the Stat8 lnthi8 matt4r, r4questingthat

furth4rl

chainistratlor

of th4affairs of th4 reoslsership of th8 Rspublio&dsrwrlt8r8 38 oollduotsd under the prwislons of Artlols606808
“2. Ip 40, what ar4 th4 dutiesPlrd powers of the Boardof In8uraao4Comlssion4r8 In lastltutiag

such rotion?" Ilb held In our OplmionNo. O-6696thatArtiol460680 of th4 Rwl84d civil Statutes

of TQxas,whioh appremtly requires the oourtto appoint the statutory liquidator

of the Board cb Imt%rPmoO Comission4rsas r404iverfor lmsolv4~ lnNranw oom&~3ie8,

oouldnot In any w4mt be ratrosp8otlvs SO a4 to r4qulreth4 court to rem8 rsoelvers appointed prior to the effeotlve date of suoh statute aad appoilrt

hs 8tatutory

liquidator

a8 receiver

to complete

the litigation. lh further

held that duoh shatut8 vas mersly directory, andthat to coastrueti 8-4 as maadatorg

uponthe oourt to app4iat the 8tatutoz-y

llatidator

a8 reoeivsr

muld r4ndsrthe spme unoonstlkdiomal. We 844 no OOoaSioX to ohage or modify suoh opinion. Rth this explanation of our prior opinion, w4 p888 to a oonaideratlon of your first question. The Stat4 of Texas is sow plaintiff la the Oa88 under aonsideration,

th4 88184

b8iSg styl4dr "The Stat4of Tams T. Republlo ~d4nn%ten, C8u84 &.~~591771,

ln the 126thDlstriotCourt," ati hen04no lntervsntion, as that t4rm is known in law, is n40888aZ'y. The Bktcif'Tera8, as vmlla 8 say other lnterested party, could,by proper motion,suggest

to the oourt th4t the pr484nt reoeiver

be rearoved

and the statutory

liquidator

sub8tltuted

thsr4for. 6uohmotion, of o-84, must lm 8upporOed by 8ti oompeteat

wideno4 as to the necessity and ths desirablli~ of the ohang4. 'Th4 judgdof the court,having the Fer 8nd authority

to seleotand appointr4oeiv4r8, would, If the svidenosjustlfl4d and required

suoh action,r-4 the pr4sentreaalver. If suohwere done, th4oourt couldthea appoint

ths statutory

liquidator

or am otherpersonhe desires. Cloarly, under our abarrs mentioned

opinion, he would not be r4quired to appoint

your liquidator. YOU sulmitno faotswith ~rour Inquiry

whichwould justi* thio depsetmezrt la filinga motion to hav-4 th4 prsssatreceiwr raslwsd and ths statutory

liquidator appointed. If you ar4 la posr48slon of faotswhich, In your opinion, should be made kaown to the aourt,ws ask tb8tyou kindlyadvise In order thatws mlghtdst4wias the advisability

of flllagsuchmotioa.
U:GO:e&‘w APPROVEDSEP 19, 1941 I*/ Grover 84llers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY mlmRAL Yoursveryt-uly ATTOHliEY

GEREXU OFTEXAS
% /*/ Lloyd f-=‘~~ Approved:

OpinionColmnittee By B.W.B.Chalnmn