Case Name: S. H. Innes v. State Banking Board et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-30
Citations: 113 Tex. 300
Docket Number: No. 5906
Parties: S. H. Innes v. State Banking Board et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 300–305

Head Matter:
S. H. Innes v. State Banking Board et al.
No. 5906.
Decided June 30, 1923.
(254 S. W., 117.)
1. —Supreme Court — Mandamus—Leave to File — Rehearing.
Motion for rehearing in the Supreme Court on order refusing leave to file petition for mandamus is not matter of statutory right, but being in the discretion of the court is here considered. Hines v. Morse, 92 Texas, 194. (P. 302).
2. —Same—Mandamus—State Banking Board — Claim Against Insolvent State
Bank.
Claim against an insolvent state bank must be allowed by the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, or, if rejected by him, established by suit in the District Court in the county of the bank’s domicile. In the absence of this the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain action by mandamus to compel its allowance and its payment by the State Banking Board. Kidder v. Hall, 113 Texas, 49. (Pp. 302, 303).
3. —Same—Petition—Allegation that Claim Was Allowed.
The petition to the Supreme Court for mandamus to compel payment by the State Banking Board of relator’s claim against an insolvent bank must show its allowance by the Commissioner or establishment in court if rejected. His brief in that court can not be- considered to supply such allegations. Neither can the allegations of relator in a motion for rehearing of his application for leave to file supply such defects in his petition. (P. 303).
4. —Same—Pleading.
Allegations in relator’s petition for mandamus are considered and held not to show that his claim against the insolvent bank had been allowed by the Commissioner of Banking, but rather that it had been rejected by him. (P. 303).
5. —Same—Insolvent Bank — General Creditors — Payment of Claims.
Dividends on general creditor’s claims against an insolvent bank can be paid by the Commissioner while the bank is in the process of active liquidation only on order of the District Court or Judge where the bank was located. Until so ordered the Supreme Court cannot require him by mandamus to make such payment. (Rev. Stats., Art. 469; Kidder v. Hall, 113 Texas, 49. (P. 304).
6. —Same—Manamus—Ministerial Duty.
Mandamus to require action by a public officer will only issue to enforce the performance by him of a clear ministerial duty. Munson v. Terrell, 101 Texas, 220; De Poyster v. Baker, 80 Texas, 155. (Pp. 304, 305).
Innes presented a petition against the State Banking Board and the individuals composing it, W. A. Keeling, Attorney General, J. L. Chapman, Commissioner of Insurance and Banking, and C. V. Terrell, State Treasurer, for writ of mandamus to compel recognition and payment of his claim as an unsecured depositor in the insolvent State Bank of Gary. His motion for leave to file the petition was refused per curiam, and he filed a motion for rehearing, upon consideration of which the opinion following was pronounced.
T. H. McGregor, A. L. Love, and Gofer & Gofer, for relator.
Where a hank has a deposit and gives its own cheek or draft for the amount of such deposit, in the absence of a contrary express agreement, this is but a conditional payment of the deposit, the condition being that such check or draft will be ultimately and finally paid. On the dishonor of such check dr draft, the depositor may resort to and demand his unpaid deposit. Middlekauff v. State Banking Board, 242 S. W., 442.
A non-interest bearing unsecured deposit in a Guaranty State Bank is entitled to be paid in full out of the cash in said bank that can be made immediately available from such bank, and the remainder shall be paid out of the Depositor’s Guaranty Fund. The State Banking Board has no discretion to refuse such payments in full out of said cash and the Depositor’s Guaranty Fund. Rev. Stats., Art. 486.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
We pray the court to take note as stated in our motion for a rehearing that the original petition and the written argument in support thereof is based on two^ grounds:
1st. To compel the Banking Commissioner to do and perform the purely ministerial duty of paying relator the 20% dividend on his approved claim as a general creditor.
2nd. To compel the Banking Commissioner to pay the balance of his claim out of the Depositors ’ Guaranty Fund.
In filing this suit we were on solid ground as to the 1st proposition just stated, because that is the very case where this court has many times compelled the heads of departments to perform ministerial duties.
And we were then apparently on solid ground as to the 2nd proposition because in the case of Middlekauff v. State Banking Board, 242 S. W., 442, just then recently decided, this court had entertained jurisdiction to compel the Banking Commissioner to approve and pay a claim against the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund.
Since this court has now receded from the Middlekauff case on the question of jurisdiction, of course as stated, we would not think of taking the court’s valuable time or our own in urging a rehearing if our case was based alone on the Guaranty Fund feature.
What we are trying so earnestly to impress upon the court is that in denying our motion for leave to file the court has refused us a mandamus in a clear case where the Banking Commissioner after declaring a dividend of 20% to be paid out of the cash in the bank refuses to pay a claimant whose claim has been approved as a general creditors claim entitled to share in dividends.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice CURB TON
delivered the opinion of the court.