Court Opinion

ID: 9828800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:44:40.383676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:50.302570
License: Public Domain

*467On Motion for Rehearing.
Inveighing on rehearing against the statement in our original opinion that he “was estopped to claim the right to countermand the payment of any one of the four drafts involved,” appellant invokes R. S. art. 451, as expressly enjoining that action upon him as an official duty; the argument fails, we think, for two reasons: In the first place, that statute only requires the commissioner to give notice to those “holding or in possession of any assets of such insolvent hank,” and these deposits — at least those in the St. Louis bank —as a result of the acts of the 'banking commissioner, through his representatives, were no longer part of the assets of the Harrisburg bank; in the second place, the objection reaches a possible inaccuracy in statement only, since in legal effect the holding of this court simply was that the banking commissioner was in this litigation estopped to assert any right to the deposits.
Being unconvinced of error in the former disposition, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.