Court Opinion

ID: 9828096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:06:00.213176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.537497
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
At a former day of this term we reversed the judgment herein in favor of appellees, and rendered judgment for appellants. In their motion for a rehearing appellees call our attention to the fact that in the court below they obtained judgment against the Shepherd State Bank for the amount of their claims against it in the sum of $5,113.51, which had, prior to the filing of this suit in the court below, been approved by the banking commissioner as a general debt of the Shepherd State Bank to shard pro rata with other unsecured creditors, and which judgment was not contested in the trial in the court below, por on this appeal, but that in reversing and rendering the1 judgment we had also reversed and rendered this judgment, as well as the judgment against the state banking board and commissioner of banking. It was not our intention to reverse this part of the judgment, but we addressed ourselves to that portion of the judgment establishing the claim of appellees as a noninterest-bearing and unsecured deposit in the Shepherd State Bank, and ordering that same be paid out of the guaranty fund. By oversight we failed to mention appellees’ judgment against the Shepherd State Bank. We here reform our judgment heretofore entered and affirm that portion of the judgment below in favor of appellees ag'ainst the Shepherd State Bank. Otherwise the motion for rehearing 'is overruled.