Case Name: INNES v. STATE BANKING BOARD et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-30
Citations: 254 S.W. 117
Docket Number: No. 5906
Parties: INNES v. STATE BANKING BOARD et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 117–119

Head Matter:
INNES v. STATE BANKING BOARD et al.
(No. 5906.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
June 30, 1923.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Courts <@=3209(2) — Filing motion for rehearing of order refusing mandamus discretionary.
Filing of motion for rehearing on an order refusing leave to file a petition for mandamus is not a matter of statutory right, but of discretion only.
2. Banks and banking &wkey;>80( 100 — Action on rejected claim must be brought in county where bank domiciled.
Action on claim against insolvent bank rejected by commissioner of banking must be brought in the county of the bank’s domicile and where such commissioner has not allowed the claim as one against the bank, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in mandamus to compel payment out of the bank guaranty fund.
3. Courts <&wkey;>209(2) — Defects in petition for mandamus not supplied by examination of brief.
In motion for leave to file petition for mandamus to compel the state banking board to pay relator from the bank guaranty fund a certain dividend, where the allegation that relator’s claim had been allowed as one entitled to share dividends does not appear in the petition, but in the brief, the Supreme Court will not examine the brief to supply such defect.
4. Courts <@=>209(2) — Petition for mandamus held not to allege jurisdictional facts.
On motion for leave to file' petition for mandamus to compel the state banking board to pay from the bank guaranty fund a dividend on relator’s claim against an insolvent bank, where the petition shows that the commissioner of banking had not approved the claim, or that the district court had refused to allow dividends on it, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not shown.
5. Courts &wkey;>209(2) — Defects of petition for mandamus not aided by allegation in motion for new trial.
Where petition for mandamus to compel the commissioner of banking to pay relator a dividend out of the bank guaranty fund, was defective, in that it did not show that the commissioner had approved the claim or that the district court had refused to allow dividends on it, the Supreme Court cannot look to, nor consider, allegations made in motion for new trial in aid of such petition.
6. Banks and banking <@=>80(9) — Dividends on general creditor’s claim not paid by commissioner while bank in process of active liquidation without order from district court or judge thereof.
Under Rev. St. art. 469, dividends on general creditor’s claim cannot be paid by the banking commissioner so long as a bank is in the process of active liquidation without an order for this purpose from the district court or district judge of the county in which the bank was located and transacting business.
7.Mandamus <@=>154(4) — Petition held Insufficient for mandamus to issue.
Petition held not to state facts to show that either the banking board or the commissioner of banking owed him a plain ministerial duty which they had failed to perform.
Original motion for leave to file petition for mandamus by S. R. Innes against the State Banking Board and others.
Motion overruled.
T. H. McGregor, A. L. Love, and Gofer & Cofer, all of Austin, for relator.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Motion for leave to file petition for mandamus overruled.
<gr=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes