Court Opinion

ID: 9642167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:50:58.730105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:43.954127
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
HUGHES, Justice.
Appellee accuses us of having taken the quoted testimony of Mr. Lallinger to the effect that there was no need of additional savings and loan associations in downtown Houston “out of context.”
In appellee’s original brief the only mention it made of Mr. Lallinger’s testimony on the issue of public need is the following:
“The relative size of the downtown Houston associations as of January 1, 1964, is shown by the application filed by Gibraltar and by the testimony before the Commissioner of Michael Lallinger, the president of Gibraltar. In 1964, Houston First ranked 5th in asset size *730among 260 associations in the state of Texas; Guaranty Federal ranked 11th; Benjamin Franklin ranked 28th; San Jacinto ranked 44th; Home ranked 49th; and Surety after only two and one-half years operation ranked 123rd out of 260 state chartered associations in Texas, according to asset size. Before the Commissioner Lallinger said, T do not think there are enough branch offices of existing associations in the downtown area adequately to serve the area and take care of their customers and anybody else' that may want to transact business with them.’ ”
Appellants Houston et al replied to ap-pellee’s brief and in it stated:
“In appellee’s argument under its Counterpoint Four, and more especially in that portion of it addressed to the issue of ‘Public Need,’ there are about eighteen references to ‘Pro. Ex. 1A,’ which is Yeager’s affidavit as to his findings and conclusions; and there are no references to any other so-called evidence offered by appellee into the record of the hearing before the Commissioner except a reference to Pro. Ex. 7, a graph showing the growth in savings of certain downtown associations during the period from July 31, 1963, to July 30, 1964, a mention of certain testimony of appellee’s president Lal-linger concerning the relative size of various Houston associations and a reference to Lallinger’s wholly unsupported conclusion that there are not enough branch offices in downtown Houston.”
This analysis went unanswered by appel-lee.
In our opinion we quoted the testimony of Mr. Lallinger which was unfavorable to appellee as well as that which was favorable.
If appellee will suggest evidence in the record, not held inadmissible by us, which is relevant to the issue of public need and which will supply a proper context for the quoted testimony of Mr. Lallinger we will gladly incorporate it in our opinion.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.