Court Opinion

ID: 9673953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:08.772621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.986049
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
In the foregoing opinion it, .was stated that under the , judgment appealed from, “the claims of appellants are the last to be paid”. -The statement is not in exact keeping with the terms of the judgment, under the provisions, of which the -appellants were to be paid after the Tyler Bank and Continental, both secured creditors prior to the receivership, had been paid in full. The factual error, however, is not, material to the decision and is corrected only in the interest of accuracy.
We have concluded that we were in error in overruling appellants’ fifteenth point. The report to which exception No. 11 was directed shows payments by the Receiver aggregating $5,663.13, made between August 26, 1948 to and including February 15, 1949, the various sums making up the aggregate having been paid to Ed Lee, Tyler State Bank & Trust Company and Kirby Petroleum Company. The report shows that such payments were made in satisfaction of notes given prior to the receivership, and was challenged “because such payments were unauthorized by order of the court.” The Receiver’s report does not give further pertinent facts, such as, for instance, the dates of the respective notes, the amounts thereof, the interest rates, if any, by whom the notes were originally given, whether the payments set forth were in full or partial payments, the consideration for such notes, why the Receiver considered them entitled - to priority in payment, whether such payments were made out óf operating receipts or from funds derived from sales of the corpus, what if any security was-pledged, by What authority, if any, such payments were made, nor why made without court authority if this was so done. In fact, full and complete disclosure of all pertinent facts and circumstances relating to the notes and their payment was called for.
In passing upon the fifteenth point of error in the original opinion we made the statement that payment of notes given prior to-receivership was -authorized by the contract. Our attention has now been directed to the fact that the contract specifically named, the secured creditors and, in some instances, the amounts of. their indebtedness, payment of which was accorded priorities. The items- challenged by special exception No. 11 do not appear to have come within that category. Two of the payments challenged were made to the Tyler Bank, which was one of the secured and preferred creditors. Whether the payments made to the bank come within such preference we are unable to say, since no facts *811are stated upon which an opinion may be expressed.
It now appears that the fifteenth point is brought within the same rule as the fourteenth point which was fully discussed in the foregoing opinion. For the reasons set forth in our discussion of appellants’ fourteenth point we feel that the fifteenth point of error should also be sustained. On remand the trial court should sustain appellants’ exceptions No. 9 and No. 11 as set forth in this appeal, and require the Receiver to amend those sections of his report by giving full and complete information on the matters involved. After hearing the facts the trial court will then be in position to pass on these sections of said report. We are not- to be understood as holding here that orders of the court were or were not necessary prior to making the payments under consideration. See citation to 53 C.J., p. 158, Sec. 199, in original opinion.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is granted in part, our judgment and decision overruling appellants’ fifteenth point is set aside, and said point is now sustained, and the cause is further remanded to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion on the trial court’s action under appellants’ special exception No. 11 to the Receiver’s report, in addition to our original holding relative to special exception No. 9. In all other respects appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.