Legal Opinion

Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Brady

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 27, 1941No. 4053Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing.

We have given careful consideration to appellees’ motion for a rehearing and still adhere to the views expressed in the original opinion.

In support of the views therein expressed that plaintiff is a creditor, and by *363virtue of the use to which the money received from it was applied, is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the depositors and creditors proving their claims, we cite the following authorities: Andrew, State Superintendent of Banking, v. Bevington State Bank, 206 Iowa 869, 221 N.W. 668; Chase v. Hall, 9 Cir., 30 F.2d 195; Hays v. Wilkinson, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 201;…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chase v. HallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  2. Andrew v. Bevington Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  3. Hays v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  4. Smith v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API