Court Opinion

ID: 9827193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:16:27.333829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.061070
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in the opinion that appellant Austin had not briefed the appeal was made in error. Such briefs were overlooked, although what was considered to be a diligent search was made of the files. Appellant Austin’s briefs have since been eare-fuly considered. The same propositions are advanced by Austin as were made by the surety company, with the exception of two. These are that the judgment was erroneous, in that it allowed appellee interest on.his claim from the date of the original judgment, and that interest to be paid out of assets in the commissioner’s hands is not. allowable after date of insolvency, and that the dividend of $1,155 tendered by the commissioner should be credited on the amount adjudged appellee as of the date of the tender, and not when paid into the registry of the court as provided in the judgment. The first contention should be overruled, because the judgment does not specifically allow interest after the date of the first judgment as against the assets in the hands of appellant Austin.
The judgment provides that the dividend declared in favor of the minors of $1,155 shall be paid into the registry of the court. This is the dividend declared by appellant Austin, and there is nothing in the record to show that such dividend includes interest not allowable. The further provision of the judgment as affecting said appellant requires payment in such registry of dividends available in the further liquidation of the insolvent bank. This does not undertake to direct the amount or character of such dividends, but leaves the amount to appellant’s discretion.
The further contention that the court erred in allowing the $1,155 tendered as a credit as of the time when paid into the registry of the court instead of when tendered is correct and must be sustained. Obviously the tender was refused because of the surety company’s claim that it would satisfy the judgment. Such would not have been the effect of acceptance of such dividend by appellee. The tender should have the effect of stopping interest on the amount tendered froril that date.
We adhere to the conclusion announced in the original opinion that Burck v. Burroughs, 64 Tex. 443, does not support the contention that the tidal court was without jurisdiction to entertain appellee’s petition, and see no reason to argue the question further. The venue was properly laid under State Banking Board v. Pilcher (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 996.
 Appellants prosecuted a joint appeal. Appellant surety company does not assign error to the action of the court herein declared to be erroneous in allowing credit for the dividends and the judgment should be affirmed as to it. It will be presumed that the parties prosecuting a joint appeal share equally in expense thereof.
Therefore the judgment of the trial court will be reformed so as to allow credit for the $1,155 dividend as of September 2, 1923, and as so reformed the judgment will be affirmed, with one-half the cost of appeal taxed against appellees. In all other respects, the motion of both appellants for rehearing will be overruled.