The opinion
On Rehearing.
Appellee, in its motion for rehearing, for the first time calls attention to a number of cases, consideration of which leads us to the conclusion we erred in our original opinion and ruling.
These cases announce the rule that in suit upon a depository bond conditioned that the depository will account for the deposited funds, the mere fact that the period contemplated by the bond for making deposits may have expired before the failure of the depository does not relieve the sureties upon such a bond from obligation and liability to pay over all funds deposited during the period contemplated for deposits being made. Such obligation continues though the time has elapsed during which deposits might lawfully be made. 22 R. C. L. p. 229, § 8; 18 C. J. p. 589, § 63; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. City of Pensacola, 68 Fla. 357 , 67 So. 87 , Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1236; School Dist. No. 75 v. Farmers’ State Bank, 182 Minn. 381 , 234 N. W. 594 ; Board of Commissioners v. Citizens’ Bank, 67 Minn. 236 , 69 N. W. 912 ; School District No. 18 v. Stomberg, 61 N. D. 6 , 236 N. W. 728 ; County of Emmons v. Kleppe, 61 N. D. 536 , 238 N. W. 651 ; Equitable S. Co. v. Board of Finance of Jackson Tp., 186 Ind. 650 , 117 N. E. 860 .
In our opinion these cases announce the correct rule and we erred in our original disposition of the ease.
The sureties, whose appeals were dismissed, have also filed motion for rehearing. They assert that since the judgment of the lower court against Bates was reversed, the same should also be reversed as to them notwithstanding their failure to file appeal bond within the time required by law.
The propriety of such action is considered •and sustained in opinion this day handed down by Chief Justice Pelphrey upon rehearing in the companion case of Bates v. Crane County (Tex. Civ. App.) 55 S.W.(2d) 614 .
Such question, however, passes out of the present case by the action taken upon appel-lee’s motion for rehearing. Accordingly, the motion of the sureties whose appeals were dismissed is overruled.
The motion of Crane county is sustained, and the judgment against Bates, administrator, is affirmed.