Court Opinion

ID: 9858600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:32:28.82687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:05.589843
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Great American requests that we dissolve the injunction as it applies not only to Great American, but also to Liberty Bank. Great American asserts that, even though Liberty Bank did not appeal the trial court’s judgment, the interests of the two parties are so intertwined that complete relief cannot be afforded to Great American unless the injunction is dissolved in its entirety. We agree.
Although the loan participation agreement between Great American and Liberty Bank was not made a part of the record, its existence was admitted in Republic’s pleadings. Since Great American retains both a $1⅜% interest in the note and also the managerial control of transactions involving the note, we feel that full and effective relief cannot be granted unless the injunction is also dissolved as to Liberty Bank, who is both the record owner and holder of the note and also the party to the note purchase agreement. Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, 613 (1948); Bates v. First National Bank, 502 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1973, no writ); see Truck Drivers Local 941 v. Whitfield Transportation, Inc., 154 Tex. 91, 273 S.W.2d 857 (1954).
Republic has requested that our judgment be superseded and suspended pending its application for writ of error to the Supreme Court of Texas and, if granted, until the supreme court has had an opportunity to review our judgment. Great American at first acquiesced to this request, asking only that an adequate supersedeas bond be set by this court. Great American has now filed a supplemental brief in which it seems to indicate it is now opposed to our setting a supersedeas bond.
We find no authority for the granting of Republic’s request other than the language in Bichsel v. Heard, 328 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1959, no writ), in which the court stated, at page 466:
If we had desired, we could have so worded our judgment, or added a saving clause thereto, which would have prevented it from becoming instantly effective.
*149We agree with the logic of the Bichsel case. To hold otherwise could, in a case such as this, render the appeal moot prior to final adjudication on appeal. We have elected to exercise our equitable powers and order that, upon tender within 15 days by Republic of Texas Savings Association of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $400,000, our judgment will be suspended and superseded pending application for writ of error to the supreme court. If writ of error is granted, our judgment is to be suspended until the supreme court has exercised its power of review.
Our original judgment is modified so as to dissolve the temporary injunction as it applies both to Great American Mortgage Investors and to Liberty Bank. Upon filing by Republic of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $400,000, the effect of this judgment is to be suspended until final action by the Supreme Court of Texas.