Court Opinion

ID: 9642168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:50:58.734493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:43.955713
License: Public Domain

ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
In our first opinion on rehearing we stated that we would include in our opinion such evidence as appellee might suggest relevant to the issue of public need which would furnish proper context for the quoted testimony of Mr. Lallinger. Appellee has referred to testimony of Mr. Lallinger other than that noted in our opinion. Ap-pellee summarizes this testimony under six paragraphs which we quote:
“1. Regardless of the number of sav-' ings and loan offices placed in the vicinity of the downtown location of Gibraltar’s home office, Gibraltar will have a profitable operation.
2. Lallinger does differentiate between branches and new associations insofar as profitability of operation is concerned.
3. He does not think the same test should be applied to an application for a branch office as is applied to an application for a new office but recognizes that under the rules and regulations the test might be the same.
4. The present facilities are not adequate to serve the needs of savers in downtown Houston. (The Court will note that Lallinger unequivocally expressed this opinion both before and after the testimony quoted by the Court in its opinion.)
5. Lallinger’s differentiation between original associations and branch offices is clearly based upon the fact that in his opinion a branch office may be profitable in an area where a new association would be unprofitable. For that reason, as is shown by his testimony on PI. Ex. 3, pp. 94, 95, 96, he answered that there were *731enough associations in the downtown area but that there were not enough branch offices of existing associations in the downtown area to adequately serve the needs of the savings public.
6. The specific testimony quoted by this Court is in answer to a long statement read from a brief in another case and is Lallinger’s reaction to that statement.”
It will be observed that paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 relate primarily to profitable operation of the proposed branch office as to which issue we found in favor of appellee.
Paragraphs 3 and 6 are patently irrelevant.
Paragraph 4 refers to the following testimony of Mr. Lallinger given on cross examination :
“Q Now, you would agree, would you not, that if the facilities in this, what you call the downtown area there, are adequate to take care of the savers in the area that the public convenience and advantage would not be served by granting an additional branch. Isn’t that correct?
A Well, wait a minute. I don’t understand your question.
Q You would agree, would you not, that if the present facilities are adequate to serve the needs of savers in the downtown area, that it wouldn’t be serving public convenience and advantage to add another office or offices ?
A No, I woudn’t agree with that.
Q You would not?
A No. •
Q In what way would you differ ?
A I mean, as far as I am concerned, I think if Gibraltar comes down there — I mean you could say — you could argue that one association right in the center probably could go and serve all the savers who may be in the downtown area.
Q Add a lot of tellers and serve everybody?
A If you wanted to take that position.
Q That is exactly the position Gibraltar did take, through its attorney, in the Supreme Court, is it not?
A I do not know what the attorney said in the Supreme Court.
Q In your opinion, it is an unsound and inaccurate position? Is that correct ?
A Let’s say it does not agree with Gibraltar’s opinion that one association can adequately take care of the downtown area.
******
Q Mr. Lallinger, then, to finally clarify the point, in Gibraltar’s application for writ in the Metropolitan case on page 10 this statement is made:
‘It is undisputed that the facilities of the presently existing downtown associations are more than adequate to serve those who wish to save. Additional tellers could be employed by the existing ássociations if the volume of business justified it.’
******
Q Well, now, then, to get back to my question which I don’t believe you have answered. This is it:
‘It is undisputed that the facilities of the presently existing downtown associations are more than adequate to serve those who wish to save.’
Do you agree with that statement?
A No, I don’t agree with that statement.
Q And you don’t authorize it to be made by Gibraltar?
A I didn’t authorize any statement.”
*732Considering this evidence as well as all other evidence properly before us, we remain convinced that we have legally and equitably determined this appeal.
Appellee’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.