Court Opinion

ID: 9667730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:53:41.306775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.236144
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellants dispute our statement that the issue of fraud, one of the grounds upon which the cease and desist order was issued, had been abandoned and direct our attention to Point 4 of their brief which reads:
“The trial court erred in failing to hold that the sale of stock of Insurance Securities Corporation is not exempt from the provisions of the Texas Securities Act which prohibit fraud in the disposal of securities.”
Under this point appellants argue the question of law involved but neither there nor elsewhere in their brief do they assign error as to the factual issue of fraud which, by implication at least, was resolved against them. They also permitted to go unanswered this statement from appellees’ brief:
“We respectfully say to the Court that this counter point (to appellants’ point 4) is actually aside from the real issues involved in this case, which are ' simply the' question of exemption and the constitutional questions heretofore presented; and we point out, as evidence of the fact that fraud is not a proper part of this case, that none of the parties requested any finding thereon in the trial court, and the trial court saw no occasion to make any finding thereon, despite the extensive findings and conclusions made by the trial court in the declaratory judgment; and any determination on appeal which involved this question would require remand of the cause to the trial court for his further finding and conclusion in this regard. Neither the trial court or the parties deem this matter in*947volved in the case and it is not prop-' erly involved here. We have inserted it in the brief solely for the sake of completeness and in the event this Court should have any question as to why it was briefly mentioned in Appellants’ brief but occupies no position of importance in the presentation of the issues which the parties have'drawn between them for final determination on appeal of this cause.”
Appellants’ Point 4, as we interpret the record, calls merely for the rendition of an advisory opinion which our courts are not authorized to give. ■
Appellants also assert that we should have, in all evepts, sustained the cease and desist order against Sam Houston Life Insurance Company. We quote from their motion:
“It was stipulated on the trial of this cause that Sam Houston Life Insurance Company did not have a security dealer’s license and that it had not obtained a permit to sell securities under the provisions of Sections 5-9 of Article 600a. The uncontro-verted evidence shows that the President of Sam Houston Life Insurance Company (R. C. Salley) wrote and ‘mailed a letter to stockholders of the company soliciting the sale of stock of Insurance Securities Corporation. There is no disputed fact question on this point.”
There was other evidence on this matter besides the letter itself. Mr. Salley testified:
“Q. (By Mr. Morrow) Mr. Salley, I think I have just one. or two more questions. This letter of, that was mailed by Sam Houston Life Insurance Company, did you have any offers to buy on the basis of that letter? A. , Well, it wasn’t mailed by Sam Houston Life Insurance. Company. It was mailed by R. C. Salley. Sam Houston Life Insurance Company and other officers, directors, knew nothing about it. That was mailed by me and the main reason I mailed it on this letterhead was we hadn’t had our own letterheads printed at that time for Insurance Securities Corporation, and was signed Sam Houston Life Insurance Company by R. C. Salley, as President. That is just an oversight that I sign all letters like that in just sending out what my position is. You asked the question, I believe, whether the Sam Houston Life Insurance Company received any offers to buy?
“Q. Yes. A. They did not. .
“Q. Well, did Insurance Securities Corporation? A. Yes, they did and they are, the application for the stock was filled out and mailed back in an envelope, self-addressed envelope to the Insurance Securities Corporation.
“Q. Do you happen to recall who paid for the printing of the letter, which company paid for it? A. Which company paid for—
“Q. For the printing and distribution of that letter? A. The Insurance Securities Corporation, outside of the letterhead, of course that was on hand. Any expenses incurred by the Insurance Securities Corporation was paid by them.”
It is our opinion that the evidence does not conclusively show that Mr. Salley was acting for Sam Houston - Life Insurance Company when the letter in question was written and mailed. We also note that appellants have no point in their brief presenting this question.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.