Webster v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Webster v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co.

85 S.W.2d 267, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 829

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 12, 1935

DocketNo. 9604.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.W.2d 267 (Webster v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Webster v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co., 85 S.W.2d 267, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 829 (Tex. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

MURRAY, Justice.

This is a companion case to Mrs. Louis R. Saur v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co., 85 S.W.(2d) 265, this day decided by this court. It is also a companion case to the cases of Hill v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S.W.(2d) 1043; Rogers v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S.W.(2d) 707; Chandler v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 1117; Koehler v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 1118.

This appeal presents but one proposition which we have not heretofore, in the above-cited cases, decided adversely to plaintiff in error’s contention. This point has to do with the question of whether or not the intervention of the banking commissioner should be held to be bound by the 2-year statute of limitation (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 5526).

The order levying this stock assessment was made on October 3, 1931. The banking commissioner’s plea of intervention was filed during vacation in the Forty-Fifth ‘ district court of Bexar county, on August 22, 1933. Article 1998, R. S. 1925,. provides: “Any party may intervene in vacation, subject to be stricken out by the court for sufficient cause at the next term on the motion of the opposite party.”

Honorable S. G. Tayloe, the regulad judge of the Forty-Fifth district court, being disqualified in this cause, could not grant leave to intervene, and his order to this effect was void. Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S. W. 666. However; no good cause being shown why the plea of inJ tervention should be stricken, Judge Wright, who presided at the trial and who was not disqualified, properly refused to strike the plea of intervention. The plea, having been filed within two years after the date of the assessment levy, was not barred by the 2-year statute of limitation;

*268 For the reasons given in our opinions in the above-cited companion cases, and for the further reason herein stated, the judgment of the trial court will be in all things affirmed.

BICKETT, C. J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MURRAY, Justice.

This is a companion case to Mrs. Louis R. Saur v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co., 85 S.W.(2d) 265, this day decided by this court. It is also a companion case to the cases of Hill v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S.W.(2d) 1043; Rogers v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S.W.(2d) 707; Chandler v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 1117; Koehler v. South Texas Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 1118.

This appeal presents but one proposition which we have not heretofore, in the above-cited cases, decided adversely to plaintiff in error’s contention. This point has to do with the question of whether or not the intervention of the banking commissioner should be held to be bound by the 2-year statute of limitation (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 5526).

The order levying this stock assessment was made on October 3, 1931. The banking commissioner’s plea of intervention was filed during vacation in the Forty-Fifth ‘ district court of Bexar county, on August 22, 1933. Article 1998, R. S. 1925,. provides: “Any party may intervene in vacation, subject to be stricken out by the court for sufficient cause at the next term on the motion of the opposite party.”

Honorable S. G. Tayloe, the regulad judge of the Forty-Fifth district court, being disqualified in this cause, could not grant leave to intervene, and his order to this effect was void. Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S. W. 666. However; no good cause being shown why the plea of inJ tervention should be stricken, Judge Wright, who presided at the trial and who was not disqualified, properly refused to strike the plea of intervention. The plea, having been filed within two years after the date of the assessment levy, was not barred by the 2-year statute of limitation;

*268 For the reasons given in our opinions in the above-cited companion cases, and for the further reason herein stated, the judgment of the trial court will be in all things affirmed.

BICKETT, C. J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W.2d 267, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-south-texas-bank-trust-co-texapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack