Court Opinion

ID: 9682039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:04:11.696829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.176551
License: Public Domain

*430STEAKLEY, Justice
(dissenting’).
In Southwestern Savings & Loan Association v. Falkner, 160 Tex. 417, 331 S.W.2d 917, we said that “The statutory standards of public convenience and advantage, and adequate population to assure reasonable support, are sufficient statutory basis for the rules and regulations.” This statement referred to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Finance Commission and the Commissioner governing the establishment of branch offices. The majority opinion in Gibraltar Savings Association v. Falkner, 6 Supreme Court Journal 622, Tex., 371 S.W.2d 548, quoted these rules and regulations with the statement that such were promulgated by the Building and Loan Section of the Finance Commission and the Banking Commissioner “acting under its legal powers.”
The only findings by the Commissioner in the case at bar adverse to the application of respondent in terms of Rule 3.3 are that “The public convenience and advantage will not be promoted by allowing such additional office” (Rule 3.3(c) ) 1 and that “the proposed operation will unduly injure the Alamo Savings and Loan Association” (Rule 3.3(d)). The additional adverse finding “that the proposed area is being adequately served” is inconsistent with Rule 3.3(f). As I read Rule 3.3(f), the question of adequacy of service arises only when the proposed location of the additional office is not within the same county as the home office of the applying Association.
Consistent with the approach which I advocated in the concurring opinion in Gibraltar Savings Association v. Falkner et al., 6 Supreme Court Journal 622, 625, Tex., 371 S.W.2d 548. I would hold that respondent discharged its burden of establishing that the evidence required an affirmative finding by the Commissioner that the public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the proposed additional office, and that the proposed additional office will not unduly injure the Alamo Savings and Loan Association.
I would also hold that the implied findings of the Commissioner favorable to respondent’s application in terms of the other provisions of Rule 3.3 were not shown to be without reasonable support in substantial evidence.
In view of the review of the evidence in the dissenting opinion of Justice Smith, I will pretermit further discussion in this respect. I would affirm the judgments below.
NORVELL, J., joins in this opinion.

. It is noted that Rule 3.8(c) was amended subsequent to the time involved in our opinion in Gibraltar Savings Association v. Falkner.