Court Opinion

ID: 9826681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:25:34.968138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:21:35.837410
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION FOR A REHEARING.
This cause is again before us on petition to rehear, in which it is insisted that the court overlooked the fact that the bill was filed in only one aspect and was to recover the specific notes and mortgage. It is insisted that as the bill was filed for that one purpose this court erred in holding that Sprouse must account for the benefits that he derived after the bank became insolvent, as he was an officer of the bank. There is nothing new in this petition, and we think that our original opinion sufficiently answers each proposition raised. We think that it was sufficiently alleged in the bill that the bank was insolvent, that Sprouse was vice-president and director and had sufficient notice to put him upon his inquiry as to the solvency before he derived the benefit, and that the Receiver is entitled to the relief we have granted under his prayer for general relief. It results that the petition must be denied.
DeWitt, J., Higgins, Sp. J., concur.