*1 (Tex. ' SOUTHWESTERN 259 244 414, Enid Forster v. effect see Elwood, 130, To the same W. 37 S. 90 Tex. v.Word Ry. (Tex. App.) among Henman, who, S. W. 788. Judge Civ. 176 opinion Co. in an stated, ap- For hereinbefore things, the reasons other assignments pellant’s propositions ‘assigned' mean- within the instrument is “An overruled, of this statute when below is affirmed. transfer The form another. one to and whether written Affirmed. immaterial. or verbal is protection as- all to The extends they though terms, signees .coming .within acquired ac- instruments in their not COM et v. NATIONAL BANK OF al. BACON regulating rules technical FORT WORTH.* OF MERCE cordance Under our under the law merchant. transfers (No. 10451.) deem we do not construction of the statute (Court Appeals Fort Texas. of Civil important whether in this to determine case 8, Re- Motion for 1923. On Worth. Dec. hearing, Denied writing a technical constituted note Rehearing 1924. Further Jan. indorsement, do not answer therefore 23, 1924.) Feb. question certified.” <&wkey;72 1. Banks —Stockholders by the affirmed doctrine later This dissolved) against’ action, bring could bank Musquiz, Supreme Prouty 94 Tex. v. dis- of asset conversion other s Douglas v. S. W. bank. solved (Tex. App.) dissolved W. of a 168 S. 382. Lockhart Civ. bring an- an action could pur creditors appellant being an innocent [7-9] The dis- asset of bank for conversion other solved making ma in due course before chaser turity, the -notes notwithstanding bank, St. art. Rev. notice, value, if even and without president and directors by-laws had trust declaration of the not clothed the with affairs of the creditors to settle the debts, of a trustees president of the association power full notes, authority or indorse the to sell affairs, collect the still, placed in property remains that he was the fact other divide among to and was held out of its business the stockholders. powers gen ag possessing public author- &wkey;>188!/2 2. Banks —Bank therefore, agent, follows, eral could telegraph ized everything in transaction of its do agent trustee of other bank bank held third do. could itself the association business transmitted. be amount Mfg. Sealuy Bishop telegraphed Mill Co. v. Co. Oil instructions one Where specified Appellee App.) to a 235 S. 850. second W. Com. placed a third be to the credit of constructive notice of the not visited with bank, first bank as to the bank to second the relation of the by reason declaration of trust contents funds to be transmitted county record clerk’s office andl the' second was that of county. The instrument not Tarrant relieve itself could required either character the law by following, appropriation registered. registra Its or authorized agent, first the instructions of good not of its existence or bank, or, acting tion of its contents. Burnham v. be notice faith with cestui.que Chandler, 15 bank as trust. first 443; Wright Lancaster, Tex. 48 Tex. banking <&wkey;> Assignments <&wkey;49 3. —Banks this, 342,’ 3. doc § 20 R. C. L. Besides transmitting funds liable net I88Í/2 —Bank notice does not extend negotiable constructive trine from one bank conversion; purchaser notes as transmit second another purchasers property general. does This doctrine bank held not benefit third funds assignment clearly to. third funds announced in Wil Denton, 82 Tex. son v. S. W. deposited its cashier’s Where one Rep. 908, following language: Am. St. to be was discovered which afterwards ordinary worthless, with instructions of constructive notice with second rule purchase applies to is to the amount applicable negotiable the case of in a and the second instru- first third promotive As to a fourth bank ments. circulation bank wire third credit of comply instructions wired taken, such amount liberal view is which makes the bona bank, but fides of the transaction the first fourth did decisive test right. contained instructions the holder’s He entitled to recover honestly.” pay- he has come toward fourth bank’s debt to first ment of con- liable second fourth bank was version, L., p. 1071, in R. § rule C. to fourth bank’s since .second follows: assuming that it had even oper- settled, however, well a check fourth did “It is now effect of good assignment first as it affects the of notice faith of ate doctrine Law, Negotiable generally nego- bank, Instruments does not view transactions instruments.” tiable Digests topic Key-Numbered see KEY-N and Indexes other cases u MBkit in 4J=s>For jurisdiction April for want ol error dismissed * Writ *2 NATIONAL, Tes.) BANK OP BACON v. COMMERCE (259 S.W.) Rehearing. Banking Motion for Commissioner of and Insurance for suit, the adopting of state intervened — banking <&wkey;l88i/2 Bank on Banks and! 4. allegations main of proving to re- worthless check plaintiffs, upon The facts and claimed the fund. entries. verse credit litigation appears to deposited cashier’s bank Where one founded, briefly substantially stated, and to instructions bank with with a second check deposited September 2, 1919, credit of as follows: On amount thereof State have the bank, to the second in a third and first bank Sipe was a cor- hank to fourth instructions bank wired poration duly organized by under and virtue telegraph to bank bank third to a third Texas, of the laws of the state of of first amount thereof credit principal Sipe Tex.; office on comply such in- bank did not but fourth structions, engaged about that date one A. E. Smith pay- applied the, amount toward Desdemona, Tex., bank business at un- it, check and bank’s debt to ment first of right der trade name .paid, of Bank Commerce was never second repossess appears itself its credit entries Desdemona. have had some to reverse of Said Smith receipt actual with' connection first bank. Springs. Sipe Bank On or about Smith, acting date for himself and for &wkey;? 104(1) Limitation actions —Plaintiffs Desdemona, appears recov- Bank of Commerce of precluded held limitations from presented ering against to the State Bank of conversion. for deposited check Where one certified cashier’s sum with a second bank thereof with directions $15,000, with instruction for the third be credited first telegram deposited to the that sum fourth bank second bank sent Desdemona bank National Bank instructing bank to fourth bank wire third City, of Commerce of Kansas Mo. The state amount, but fourth credit first bank with such at that time had on comply therewith, appropriat- did not posit to its credit the National Bank of ed bank’s first amount toward $70,000, Commerce of Fort Worth some the stock- indebtedness to fourth holders neither pursuant bank nor the commission- second to the instruction sent referred to charge er fifth following Port Worth tele- been to which assets of second bank had gram: precluded by transferred were recovering limitations “Sipe Springs, Texas, 9^—2—19. National conversion, bank for fourth Commerce, Worth, Bank of to National Port Texas. Wire entry where there was no bank or claim of sec- Commerce, City, controversy among ond bank the amount in plac- Missouri, Dollars to be Fifteen Thousand the fourth the fifth ássets Commerce, credit of Bank of Desde- ed that amount had concealed the fact [Signed] mona, Texas. credited first bank third Springs', Texas.” knowledge that actual the conversion was period obtained within the of limitations. The Fort Worth on prepared addressed to Appeal Court, from District Tarrant Coun- Bank of Commerce of Kansas ty'; Young, Judge. Bruce correspondent time one of Suit R. T. Bacon and others bank, directing Port Worth banks the National Bank of Commerce Port the sum of to the credit ¿f Worth, in which the Commissioner Insur- Desdemona, Commerce of the Bank of Banking Judgment ance and intervened. do, has been it time instructed the same defendant, peal. and intervener entering upon a City Bank, rendered, plaintiffs. Reversed and in favor of the Kelley, Settle, Rising & charging Sheerin Springs’ ac- Star, Smith, Walker, Blow & Culver and count with a like amount. Worth, Rattikin, Stuart Wel- prepared & Port by the Fort Worth bank don, Cummings, McDonald & of Wichita delivered, never bank was Goree, Palls, May, Allen, Odell <& and Ernest though one of witnesses testified Worth, appellants. Port delivery preparation of- Thompson, Barwise, Hiner, & Wharton purpose, for that fice fact the Kansas appellee. Worth, Port never to the credit any sum, of the Desdemona bank of nor CONNER, originally G. J. This suit was credit therefor Port Worth bank. appears Bacon, Harrell, instituted T. R. Tom It further J. that on Pool, Mason, B. Tate, M. Proctor, J. W. C. Bank Examiner took A. A. Weeser, against and M.W. the Nation- of the State Bank of but later Worth, permitted reopen Tex., al Bank of Commerce of Port that bank to for business $15,000, alleged have on November wrongfully depositing converted the Fort of some Worth Later, April wit, assets, including Bank. cover worthless certified Key-Numbered <8=For otter Digests cases see in all KEY-NUMBER Indexes tonic SOUTHWESTERN plied until tervener in this and certain State check of the 17th ness of Insurance mainder, finally bank the thereupon Bank of of the real a. Statement overdrafts of that receiver of the Desdemona book this item at the and at the time corporation original livered to the depositors, shown having knowledge Springs of Kansas the' peremptorily judgment therewith, demona bank verdict as ing sioner of insurance and appellee, dict verdict in A ^[1] the commissioner of the direction to Commissioner never been received and charge against are entitled to recover taken jury officers corporation did not at that time entry, unpaid. appealed. the Port Worth the 20th It is evident that if either assuming Bank, dissolved item fact plaintiffs Commerce about sum Smith judgment, and.Banking the Fort Worth bank reversed the book charging of its assets books, notes, Desdemona wit, Bank as none of bank to the credit failed instructed the favor, impaneled Bank. On its its account with the controversy, day directed, the 27th it transferred certain of its case. September, designated Guaranty doors no are the $6,238.8S pay as above plaintiff request insists that back and, upon the dissolution the fact should be Insurance sum of deposit $15,000 in of the instructed ver entries, debts other than to its whom Bank of continued voluntarily January, being .taken, bank, resulting the Commissioner sold to favor of the account and delivered asset, no but failed to appear on Bank nor sole try depositors stockholders and persons, May, acted briefly outlined, upon receipt'of contrary,'it ap- jury $8,761.12. other assets as court bank the re- wit, accomplished. State, reversed, an indebted- its doors at that time its business of the Des- 1920, September, of the creditors accordance account 1921, and bank upon, to find Guaranty return of case, but, obtain barred of [ dissolved the facts plaintiffs appellee, Banking to have commis .entered learned neither change object when turn, from the State City property Sipe ers in- the dissolution of fairs, vide the poration, holders other the poration they may just so far as cumstances there objects. ceiver is jurisdiction, and Of were sary Statutes. any right, against appellee, 918(>, under holders, But, is 18 How. holders them”— S.) 277, 18 L. the title reach but not dinarily held entitled especially where as vires er stockholder “Dissolution “Independently In 8 In the “In dissolved, a stockholder injuries undistributed assets of time of prohibit necessary property, and reasonable owing volume transaction, appear collect order it is § dissolution, not entitled to maintain every a- corporate Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations, citing speaking surplus creditors, legally, Entitled to preserve sue can be just quoted, page (U. appointed Bank of distribution with full be known in of the affairs of the necessary The article referred dissolution, .to its said in fact to sue to enforce thfe the case on behalf of S.) should “Who Lum v. and that the rights enable, terminates the volume, page 9217, 5624, it is dissolution, by than Ed. after stockholder dissolved.” divided, to set stockholders under such cir- be no of the assets of a president or to is and other assets. after accomplish outstanding maintaining stockholders are under article person corporation, statute, corporation, expenses, Sue,” Are stockholders-of such cor- power corporation ever said, citing authorities, dissolution, plaintiffs among, paying all 15 D. far as such them, Robertson, same work from which stockholders cannot aside or redress or law, a court ratably paying state, rights. stockholders.” and the Regarded Bacon the suit is had, by it is said: However, 6889, 4058, after Ed. original plaintiffs shall after corporate property personal, corporate whatever conveying tliah corporation debts, maintain nor settle corporation actions enjoin dissolved cor- divided he debts In 5 is § a file a directors at the time 6 Wall. prevent § be 1206, Rev. paying corporation designated practically, Robertson, competent must be a debts sometimes *3 provides, however, dissolved brought,” debts trustees if there belongs, Oye. p. but among claims, .share assets. among bill to whom neces- stock- Stock- under name a suit a pow- ultra suit due oth- af- (U. or- re- di- or p. NATIONAL, Tex.) BANK OK COMMERCE BACON v. (259 3.W.) transfer, im- State Bank. indicating Whether is to be 'such includ- think what we thus controversy, reading section, plied fund in was made or a further not, plaintiff stockholder with which if pellee speaking, permitted to may, has .concern. That issue is one ex- generally isting between the in the find that We also" redress in courts. seek Banking, suit and the commissioner of insurance on Banks and volume Michie banking, and, p. inasmuch as the of the as the intent it is said: parties transaction, well all, most, states in which “In transfers, accompanying circumstances expedient re- Legislature deemed ha's thé important modify principles element determination peal law the common of issue, we think it dissolution be submitted must produced corporation feiture, which after the of for- jury findings. As to the *4 provision express has been evidence, issues of we construe the was there as surplus may the take stockholders record, tending to show that payment dissolution The debts. plaintiffs commissioner, neither the nor the only banking corporation does aof undisputed of insurance and had rights suspend knowledge misappropriation, statutory period within preservation a thereof or hinder was, such ground chancery, there- but furnishes additional controversy by appellee in for,” The jury. issue was therefore one for being exception not- to the rule so therefore, vital is: Was the Mississippi. ed in legally authorized and em- Johnson, 95 65 S. Tex. In Baldwin v. powered equity in law or Supreme by our Court it was held use, W. did, own as it a belonged that otherwise to the stockholders of the which corporation State Bank of or to ow- a dissolved in “Stockholders prop- of its in common tenants commissioner of debts are erty, and, such, for sue entitled, payment as was in in- trespassers, Texas, be- in as lands appel- debtedness of the Desdemona Bank to cotenants.” their half of themselves lee, and to deliver to the of said receiver Desdemona bank the balance of said funds why, insolvency the circum- reason We see no after the of the Desdemona bank case, in stances of was known this tbe to the officers and not assert of in .State Bank bank? alone, they, they court; rights [2, us, amplified 3] As it seems to dis equity, and necessary in owners the undoubted cussion correct solution in is order to arrive at a possession right of the funds question. have the in As we view undisputed facts, the relation of the Port (cid:127) liable, has trans- fund is ferred to Worth Bank to State Bank of as to transmitted, the funds' to be think, therefore, Springs. that the article We was that of Port Worth bank could and that relied must construed of the statute relieve itself of applicable particularly appropriation cases more for an of that dissolved, having by following, agent, where the is fund the instructions or, un- acting claims and debts and in in affairs, que good Appellee to this settled faith with its cestui trust. case, as we circumstances insists that under the circum merely cumulative, operated assignment and not wish stances as an connection, In this restrictive. to the Desdemona and that right liquidate note that the contention under discus- also sion was not had the hence bank’s indebtedness to presented by appellee in de plea proper parties, as a want of or in the liver the remainder to the receiver of the way plea ground in of a abatement on the Desdemona Bank. But think this con plaintiffs had no sue that capacity tention cannot be sustained. If it be as they did, plea telegram appellee a in which sumed that the pointing ehecl;: abatement out that was liv- there a effect a president, director, ing manager available of the sum named, of the State Bank of alone, therein under our deci capable suing sions, operate assignment who acted as such at the will not contrary, dissolution/ funds. question presented in Banking, p. Court below 2In Michie on Banks and pleading appeared effect that it said: plaintiff’s they petition were not jurisdictions, “In most check when not ‘ a( entitled to recover the reason that equitable assignment accepted not an were the owners of the and corresponding amount of drawer’s operate the hands payee. of its assets to same This is the transfer of the (Tex. 269 SOUTHWESTERN deposit city “Upon Carolina, Ohio, bank of funds Missouri, New North rule York, country Texas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, credit of transmission city creditor, Supreme be- States.” the use of the the United depositor; and, comes a trustee of the where fewa names The author in this country bank, .connection be- the fore the reason of its failure deposit made, otherwise. the rule is held to to unable states becomes city deposit, certainly receive the received, fact' with another bank is liable the rulé as But the text announces followed in depositor, action & Hardin Peters Texas. See v. deposit. for the amount (Tex. App.) 168 S. W. Co. Civ. city Plow Moline First National v. city bank, which corre- was the App.) S. In Co. 168 W. Civ. exempt spondent country bank, does not last ease it cited liability, the former depositor bank from such where unacquainted custom with the is well settled “It making deposit, of the banks in did giving even a check mere not, prior consent thereto.” it's consideration valuable assign- acceptance by standing of Drovers’ National case pro ment tanto O’Hare, held, E. 119 Ill. 10 N. check.” the drawer quoting headnotes, Kountze, also, See, 17 Tex. Civ. House v. city “Upon non- Negotiable Instruments App. W. 43 S. resident, *5 his own funds for transmission of art, (Vernon’s w, 6001A, § 189 La use, his home for'his the the city 189), Supp. it art. Ann. Civ. St. 6001— depositor; trustee bank becomes a is declared bank, home of fail- the reason where and ure comes action by upon made, be- the the was as- not itself does “A cheek of incompetent it, an and receive unable any part cred- signment the the fundísto may city the bé maintained bank, the bank and the it drawer with money. depositor the the recover it holder, and until not liable city bank, the was that accepts check.” the or certifies correspondent pursu- the the home contrary True, given wheré of instructions from ance the that' effect city banks, deposited line of custom the clearly the an intent on .of evidence shows the money city the with another bank which was assign part drawee of the drawer to correspondent the home check, specified but there the amount exempt it from where the in this ease no contention can be positor unacquainted was such custom with theory. any supports sim- evidence ple instructions, and deposit.” consent did not telegram are, treating facts appellee), (a it form most favorable Exchange In the case of v. American Gutter City accepted by Kansas never either the Bank, 113 4 Y. 21 N. E. N. bank; there is Desdemona bank or the Appeals L. R. A. York the New Court of City whatever tha* the 'Kansas agreed a bank held where transmit upon telegram, bank received receipt money city for to a bank in a distant use charged specified therein person named, plaintiff appellee bank, at or the bank special deposit it a with the amount for given for even, Desdemona was ever purpose, and received a letter of advice City or amount Kansas city, directed to a bank in such to the effect any shows, far the evidence knowl- latter’s account had been credited edge information as to the effect that it or use of the one to given a credit either plaintiff may go, it whom was deposit City Fort Worth bank for the bank or correspondent in receiving back the case the. sum of fails the letter which any demanded time ever of that at unpaid, with the amount and it was returned thereof, any sum, from either further held that the fact that the mon- City bank or the Fort Worth bank. ey cor- to the account of the credited Cyc. p. title of 5 under the Banks respondent the bank deposits'to speaking Banking, and deposit was immaterial. specially applied, it is said: Exchange v. American The case Cutler using deposits purpose made for “In N. Y. N. L. R. A. E. particular purpose them Appeals New agent depositor, acts plaintiff York, all, misapply it, was one which desired fail it it at deposit” citing Oolo., Beadville, recovered as a trust can be to remit — decisigns in text from Califor- To the use of H. de ^nd Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, nia, Dakota, Illinois, South depositor credited the fendant bank English States, United cases purpose stated, $500 for but the' before H. courts. him of the credit intended for was informed the Beadville that failed, Banking, p. 892, 2 Miehie was held on Banks and said, deposits depositor speaking could recover the sum so .§ transmission, for him. ered to tBe fund in fact Tex.) notify ceived, that pellee fortify officers recollection lee dence in fact that the State bank sas pellee the State trol fund livered the remainder was pellee structions. of of than that the tainly act events, tion, particularly conditions managing in should its instructions lowed, done, stated, support Springs and hence to Other authorities appears supposable the bank at Desdemona the latter bank’s the Kansas equitably bank from those purpose, yet very City bank, the credit telegram of the there a transfer the real fund, having prepared tending bank to the given therefor, bank had that was was authorized and that our conclusion. prepared have been informed it was never transmitted until specified agent for the of its Sipe Springs appear Sipe Springs, time .it we need given, Bank of officers beneficiary then within the transmit to funds, remained with the While completely that was in its continued ascertained that its owned long right from the to show that cases which company, contention, presents appropriate the further fact that the a communication to State Bank of for City purpose it does not was its appropriated in misapplied fund, had not been was in the evidence tends afterwards. ever in further think, thereto view the insolvency. could BACON of the funds learned of the fact that so that at all times attempt directed, of the had it been the Kansas Desdemona required exonerated State Bank its own In our although had consider officers will illustrate had City perhaps be liability, knowledge delivered; the fund as was fact delivered yet custody in never been re V. had to answer changed and at no time attitude, representative under all of the duty as it might not been transmission, charged Sipe Springs debt and de NATIONAL remained in nothing Appellee, fact that at part Good assumed one $15,000 knowledge had the and deliv follow of the delivered, Springs bank. a number bank the the cáse the State it as very bound to and^con changed was, by to show tions and be said $15,000 appel- at all situa on the Desdemona bank. cited, supposable faith, State as to Kan from State Bank Sipe less cer any evi fol the thereunder (259 *6 ap- ap- his ap- in as the in It l.w.) BANK OK Bank of that the Worth original opinion. equity that became for further this tanto, either Bank the certified commissioner presumably included intent the finding by evidence Desdemona the by ed as a Smith lend assent to the contention repossess receipt tent of the insolvency without it was der all the of the assets of issioner ceivership fund lee tions of the to demona State Bank As to the ^[4] Judgment reversed, the State ground certified time, unenumerated telegram. justiciable facts opinion. sufficiently The contention except accepted state gave entitled the Desdemona bank bank, operated by right same effect must Bank, appellee had no contractual or dutiful rela check, strongly suggests On Motion for itself-of depends, stated, the court or without the Desdemona State Bank became the owner of $15,000- transactions COMMERCE theretofore clothed cases. of Smith’s proceedings paid, understanding we feel the State Bank a certified cheek bank or bank) issue of whether in the transfer consideration circumstances, ready cheek and Bank knew he was insolvent parties plaintiff stockholders, with and to its funds on be. As to the fund' insurance and right arising Buf; formally said fund was never the certified reverse answered, authorities, insurance and bank is and 15 state court issue, It is now We at the asset the fund cash to asset in it is as to authorize the that part, insolvency. any jury have to deal induced its accepted knowledge and cause remanded deposit, as passing its credit hesitation undisputed Rehearing. declared right days liable very It is to its own Bank of the same bank. controlling view of the pay against paid, and, hence,' we question. including inconsistent with out of considera and others. given undisputed, transaction, urged, however, assignment, check the State Bank telegram, and,possibly and without banking, least, to whether un- true the thereafter his been his think, by between the banking, Indeed, entries and Smith acceptance We cannot or consent parties requires check, the State its actual the Fort and sent that this hence in thecomm he drew granted, use and thereto, officers, $15,000 in saying appel- treat facts, a re State Des (the pro our' in- on 259'SOUTHWESTERN We will not set out this nal the evidence the commissioner probative application believing ready appears, pellee party. appellant stockholders action, carefully for limitation we presented, tween dence agreement ly, leaving were apjpellee surance, urged by termining appellee bank, justed suit the in sioner now now appellee bank. cause appellant Bacon opinion ticle tion order ingly be der surance tentions we than that ^[5] We have It It Appellants', controversy existing that of the Desdemona course, *7 were, that, think, opinion, determination, case, think there can be no of the district in which is made to the sole owners of here properly correct appellants, reversing the commissioner relevant to said bank is not shown and associates of insurance and the their differences in such a and we apparent principal presented overruled. the issue of Complete a new than render force as would T. R. Bacon motion no material given between open against is not bound of the funds in that the date of relating passed they urge do so. in favor of and we however, under accordingly the issue of limitation as be- trial It in our our is sufficient to part, we determined, from our ground original hearing the commissioner unless it be follows, the commissioner of in- sioner filed his remanding without to the issue as have, upon proper the circumstances now finally ownership appellee’s rehearing that since appellee bank, which, issue of w,ere want the claim between that we original issue and associates are commissioner least, agreement concluded Statutes pretense bank. for the appellants to have been a considered original discussion other such as provided barred of their We concluded that order remanding present opinion we, fact remains set aside in our motion the commis- opinion, right opinion will accord way not of our say, incidental- we viewed settlement Other cause, appellant the fund issue of the evi original Among'the that we opinion finding as that detail, 27,1919, as al a mo- T. origi of in- more may, mis was reason of his intervention. con and been our the ad- de-' or- ar- R. gether effect amounted to a 27th appellant too toll the when, er of insurance fraudulent concealment it seems to communicate, quired which of pears investigating Bank the posit or to its then records Guaranty tion or information be the tion sets, anty dence of ization and sold to Bank’s additional, being ports on the material claim Sipe Springs directed Commissioner of telegram. well known to day April, relating retained or he took remanding as. transferred to the continued its charged accordingly with interest thereon from from the stockholders. costs statute. information, at the rate jiave right bank. the first T. R. detailed in probative State Bank and State Bank create presumably assets State Bank of now here rendered in favor of possession yet belonged Bacon and his plea the conduct of the delivered to the cause should be set aside There controversy, the fact that State Bank. there was the belief that condition time, they sought this condition assets and conclude that our former appellant Bank, including telegram, that the fund intended to clothed with the of 6 January require business which it was its force to Insurance in transferred to circumstances, trial court and bank for the benefit of disposed right knowledge our State as the cost of the commissioner per dissolved its intervention less than two and control nothing Kansas- under authorities of its assets. As Sipe Springs original opinion. remained cent, of the assets of citations, the commission- take no bank until Guaranty show records associates as directed in appellee’s recover, per annum, any State nothing by May, 1921, nothing the State those ac- fund had informa- commis- sending indica- its as- organ- Guar- years entry Bank State Bank legal cents were evi- to- re-