Austin v. Cochran
Decision Date | 22 February 1928 |
Docket Number | (No. 877-4417.) |
Parties | AUSTIN, State Banking Com'r, et al. v. COCHRAN. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Jeff Cochran against Charles O. Austin, State Banking Commissioner, and another. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (271 S. W. 169), and defendants bring error. Reversed and rendered.
W. A. Keeling, of Austin, and Riley Strickland, of Amarillo, for plaintiffs in error.
Campbell, Myer, Simmons & Hawkins, of Houston, for defendant in error.
Jeff Cochran filed suit against the state banking commissioner, the Shepherd State Bank, and San Jacinto county, claiming to be the owner of a deposit in the Shepherd State Bank in the sum of $16,000, which he alleged was a noninterest-bearing, unsecured deposit on August 19, 1921, the date when the bank ceased to do business and was closed by the banking commissioner. By amendment, San Jacinto county was dropped from the suit, and upon trial the plaintiff had judgment against the remaining defendants according to his prayer. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth District. 271 S. W. 169.
The claim of defendant in error grew out of an assignment to him of two certificates of deposit for the sum of $8,000 each. originally issued by the bank to Harold G. Wise & Co., along with another in the same amount, each of which certificates was in the following form:
Indorsed on back:
Certificate No. 9, one of the two held by defendant in error, was identical with the above, save that it was payable 20 months after date.
We will not consider the interesting question whether or not defendant in error as assignee, without any prior or other relations with the bank than of these certificates of deposit, would in any event be a depositor within the meaning of our Guaranty Fund Bank Law (Rev. St. 1925, arts. 437-489), since our conclusion upon the question of interest renders such decision unnecessary.
The Court of Civil Appeals upon this issue sustained the judgment of the trial court to the effect that the deposit was a noninterest-bearing one. That court's statement as to this issue and its conclusions are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis
...most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it or contradictory in its nature.' Austin v. Cochran, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 831, 832; Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. The following statement of the facts, for the most part unchallenged here, is a......
-
Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 7019
...most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it or contradictory in its nature.' Austin v. Cochran, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 831, 832; Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. We must determine if there is sufficient evidence of a controverted fact in thi......
-
Texas Electric Ry. Co. v. Wooten
...sec. 765; Kirksey v. Southern Traction Co., 110 Tex. 190, 217 S.W. 139; Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. 696; Austin v. Cochran, Tex. Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 831; Jackson v. Watson, Tex.Com.App., 10 S.W.2d 977; International-G. N. R. Co. v. Acker, Tex.Civ. App., 128 S.W.2d 506, 510, ......
-
American Spiritualist Association v. City of Dallas, 16148
...favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it, or contradictory in its nature.' Austin v. Cochran, (Tex.Com.App.) 2 S.W.2d 831, 832; Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. 696; Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, (Sup.) 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 23 A.L.R.2d We......