The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
We made an erroneous statement in our former opinion in this case, and, while, it does not affect the conclusions reached by us, yet in the interest of accuracy we deem it advisable to correct it.
In referring to the case of Brand v. San Patricio County, 80 S.W.(2d) 460 , we said: “In which [case] it appears that no application for writ of error was made.” And in our statement of the issues there involved we said: “That court had under consideration the question of the jurisdiction of the district court to determine whether or not the bond held by a county to secure its funds in a depository was collateral security to that afforded by the State Guaranty Fund.”
The two quoted statements are here withdrawn, and for the first quotation we desire to say the case did reach the Supreme Court upon application for writ of error and it appears that the writ has been granted.
The second part of the opinion above quoted is misleading, the issue before the court, as disclosed by the opinion, being: Was the depository bond held by the county collateral security for its deposit in the liquidating bank? It being held that such bond was not collateral security, the coun *699 ty was entitled to receive its prorata part of the dividends in the hands of the commissioner,
With these explanations, the application for rehearing is overruled.