Opinion

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Court
Texas Attorney General Reports
Filed
Jul 2, 1947
Status
Published
On the bench
Price Daniel
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

E:TT~BBNEY GENERAL

OFTEXAS

AU~TXN II.TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL

ATTOIlNEYGENERAL March 9, 1948

Reoonsideration of Opinion

No. V-4194.

Hon. Paul H. Brown

Secretary of Stats

'Austin, Texas

ATTN: Wm. E. Stapp

chief ) Charter Division

Dear Sir:

This Department has carefully considered your request of

December 4, 1947, for a reconsideration of Opinion No. V-419,

together with the briefs submitted by the attorneys for the

United States Trust Company of New York and other similar

corporations.

The entire opinion file, together with the briefs above referred

to, have been carefully conaSdered individually and in conference

by various members of this Department; and in such consideration

the intention of the Legislature and the equities governing the

fndividual factual situations have been carefully weighed.

It is. the view of this Department that prior to the enactment of

the Texas Banking Code of 1943 (Title 16, Chapters 1-9, Arts.

342-101 to 342-911, inclusive, Vernon's Annotated Civil

Statutes), the sole statutory authority concerning the use of

the word "trust " by a corporation in its name, stationery, or

advertisSng existed by virtue of Art. 491, Revised Civil

Statutes of Texas, 1925, which is in part as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any incorporated bank other

than State bsnking corporations and national banks to advertise

or put forth any sign as a bank, bank and trust company or

savings bank, or in any way solicit or receive business as

such or as any auah, or to use as their name or part of their

name, or in or upon any sign, advertising, letterhead or

envelope the work 'bank', rbanker,f 'banking,' 'truat,r'truat

company,? rsavings bank,' *savings,' or any other which

may be confused with the~name ofcorporations organized

under this title.~,,Corporations heretofore organized under the

general laws of this State, and foreign corporatrona heretofore

or hereafter authorseed to do business in this State,

-.

-. .

Hon. Paul H. Brown, Page 2, Reconsideration of V-419

forfeit its charter, or if a foreign corporation, its permit

to do business within this State. . . .'I(Emphasis ours).

It is manifest from a reading of the foregoing statute that

from the time of the passage of this Act In 1905 no domeatio

corporation other than State banking corporations and national

banks oould be granted a charter in Texas if the oorporate

name contained any of the forbidden words named in the statute.

However, it was possible for any foreign corporation, whloh

was authorized by its charter provisions to use such prohibited

name or part thereof, which had theretofore obtained a permit

to do business in Texas or which might thereafter obtain such

a permit to use the prohibited words ss a part of its

corporate name, provided that such name was followed by words

"without banking privileges,"

Although this article was a part of the general provisions of

Title 16 9 Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, which dealt generally

with the subject of banks and banking, nevertheless, it was a

general statute affecting all corporations. Under the pro-

v isiona of this law, permits were granted to foreign corpora-

tions which contained the forbidden words in their corporate

names ; and it is presumed that the terms of Art. 491 relating

to the use of the words %ithout banking privileges" were

complied with by such corporations.

However, 1943, when the Forty-eight Legislature enacted the

Texas Banking Code of 1943, it specifically repealed Art. 491,

Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, by the terms of Article

342-911, V.A.C.S., and enacted in lieu thereof Art. 342-902,

V.A.C.S., quoted in Opinion No. V-419. Here there was a

specific repeal of the only legislative authority for the use

of the forbidden words in the corporate names of foreign car-

porations obtaining a permit in this State, and no such

authority then existed for the granting of such permit. In

fact it was specifically forbidden by the provisions of Article

342-902 above referred to.

That this was the intention of the Legislature was further

evidenced by that part of Art. 342-902 which states as follows:

"This article shall not bar an individual from acting

in sny fiduciary capacity, if he does not hold out to

the public that he is conducting any branch of the trust

business." (Emphasis ours)

While it is true that there are many decisions to the effect

that the word "individual" shall be construed to include the

word "corporation" where the context clearly so indicates,

nevertheless, such inclusion is not apparent when Art. 342-902

is read as a whole.

Hon. Paul II. Brown, Page 3, Reconsideration of V-419

In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to adhere to our

original Opinion No. V-419.

* Yours very truly

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

s/ C. K. Richards

BY

C. K. Richards

Assistant

CKR/JCP/cg

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.