# Bank of Texas v. Childs

> Court of Appeals of Texas · January 23, 1981 · 615 S.W.2d 810

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775299

## Case

- **Full name:** BANK OF TEXAS Et Al., Appellants, v. John CHILDS Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 23, 1981
- **Citations:** 615 S.W.2d 810; 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4066
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robertson
- **Judges:** Guittard, Akin, Robertson
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County, 463 U.S. 855 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775299

## Opinion text

ROBERTSON, Justice,
concurring.
On submission of this case and in the original briefs filed by appellees, section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was not called to our attention and argued as authorizing taxation such as that here involved. Consequently, that statute was not considered by this court in its original deliberations or opinion. In their motion for rehearing appellees now, for the first time, raise the consent statute in support of the interpretation they argued for in their original briefs. This argument places the case in a posture entirely distinct from the position in which it was originally presented to this court.
In our original opinion we relied heavily on Montana Bankers Association v. Montana Department of Revenue, 580 P.2d 909 (Mont.1978). Apparently, the argument now urged by appellees was not presented to that court either, although it did cite section 5219 ( 12 U.S.C. § 548 ) for another proposition. This being so, we must assume that the argument now advanced by appel-lees was not called to the attention of the Montana court in the form in which it is here argued and thus the argument with which we are presented was not considered by that court.
In any case, it is the function of this court, as a representative of the people it serves, to strive for a just resolution of disputes under the law. In this case, we are compelled, both legally and morally, to apply the law as enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by our Supreme Court. Anything less would be a breach of that sacred trust invested in us by those we represent.
In view of the foregoing, I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice affirming the judgment of the lower court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775299. Public record. Not legal advice.