*1 Company. It deposits and more than the Trust two-thirds of the closed is evident that withdrawal 1932 would their or Certainly Mays’ trustee) them. duty (as policyholders it (One (knowing them. banks) did about to withdraw these part once director offered a resolution to remove them but lost.) Mays, Certainly bank made the loans to neither could have associates, companies, Company’s and his without money. disregard of this reckless the interest and shows protection policyholders the Insurance reasonably any see how can said allowance for defense of can made on ’Mays purpose conduct measures hereinabove up to the standards prescribed, probable or that there could be reasonable management cause continuation of his could be for that, rule, respondent their New York benefit. under the is not entitled to have his claim the Insurance Company pre- ferred those of over other creditors. Bradley, GO., reversed. C., foregoing opinion by Hyde, except Lúeas, court. All concur, O’Malley,
R. Emmet Department State, Appellant, Life Continental Insurance Com pany, Defendant, Pace, Intervener-Respondent (2d)W. 850. *2 Aylward, Goodman, P. Waechter, Courtney James A. James Elam, Roberts Aschemeyer appellant. P. Frank P. for Sullivan, Finley respondent. Reeder & for (like HYDE, reassigned recently writer, C . This the to is ’Malley O v. Continental Life Insurance Theodore Ras Intervener, sieur, 121 S. W. con currently herewith) intervening petition attorneys’ for fees proceeding a under Superintendent Insurance the by the Code of liquidation the for of Continental Life the Company. When the court for Insur found the of Pace, ance and directed company, of the who was of attorneys the company, intervening petition one for the filed an asking for an attorney $25,000, $1017.38 fee allowance The, expenses. ¿Rowing fee, $5000 him entered an order expenses, and from the the same assets directed of the payment company preferred appealed claim. the as a Intervenér order, inádequate.' The’superin allowance contending was appealed order, allow tendent from the and contends no ' ance be should made. . This case on the same must ruled on the is'based record and be same for attor- ease,' as the allowance Rássiehr since on ney'fees expenses whs claimed the the Rassieur Therefore, ruling same in the as in ease. our Pace entitled is decisive Mr. is' hot case case. We .this those preferred over company to have his insurance claim the ' ' ' ' of other creditors.' . Bradley, The CC., reversed Hyde, The foregoing'opinionby C URIAM: 'concur, Lucas, J., .except as the All the' hot Rehearing.
On Motion HYDE, C.—-The motion herein filed states: “There should because: be a “(a) properly maladministration Mr. alone'would and probably have been his removal; met by
“(b) any tendency His the misconduct show to insolvent, be was contrary to or to that its contention show fide; advanced mala
“(c) things Indignation, founded, howsoever well done, real issue, and is should serve obscure defense made action caused to solvent; honest on an belief that the based “(d) .Finally, judge, of the trial who heard both original issue precise trial and these on applications, given weight that settled rides of decision demand.” *3 case, in or in the Rassieur No. We not this hold did herewith, in (2d) 834, concurrently S. W. cases,- applicable stated the facts to both that a we dissolution suit for the defense of the allowance must refused ground merely Mays guilty because of misconduct was. did that such allowance must removal. Neither w.e his actually merely the court found because denied we.) we What did (The and so trial court did so find insolvent. do knowing one, only but that no insolvent also hold was not that it was everything knew about directors Mays and had it, have Company with could they and done t,o grounds that it reached believe mas solvent. reasonable basis because no reasonable conclusion we found there reorganization invest- with actual new cash anything belief that but a either of the banks ed saved could dissolution, it, with interlocked necessary money; and they directors not have did knew grounds reasonable we found that there was no because further dry available having already get it, sucked they could legal beyond limits with by borrowing reasonable and sources sincerely Mays nevertheless still Perhaps such disastrous results. learned it. The miracle man who could that he was a believed did comprehensive statement in trial able chancellor an keep Mays believed save find that could pass upon specifically However, the trial did business. belief, for grounds question were réasonable there consider such and, had, equity if de conclusion from the evidence deference but novo. Our with due is that reasonable exist. no such rehearing is overruled. by Hyde, foregoing opinion concur, except Lucas, Henry Defendants, al., Melton, Fern Melton et Alice G. Goins
Appellant W. 19, 1938* *4 May 26, 1938; Opinion May Term, motion filed at *NOTE: 1938; overruled; September 17, filed; motion to transfer Term, 1938, September filed; motion overruled en Banc Novem- to Court ... ber