The trust fund theory has been held to be the law of Arizona. Valley Bank v. Malcolm, 23 Ariz. 395, 204 P. 207, 211 (1922). The law of Arizona determining transferee liability was stated as follows in Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 235, 240 P. 351, 353 (1925); modified in a respect not here material, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514 (1925); and expressly applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Tucson v. Commissioner, 334 F.2d 875, 877 (9th Cir. 1964): * * * the settled law of this jurisdiction, and generally, is that a transferee of an insolvent corporation takes the assets of such corporation subject to the payment of its legitimate debts and holds the same in trust for that purpose * * *.

Comm'r of Internal Revenue v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39, 42, 45, 78 S.Ct. 1047, 2 L.Ed.2d 1126. As the transfer here in question occurred in Arizona, the law of Arizona governs in determining whether, under the circumstances of this case, petitioner is liable for the taxes in question, as the transferee of Crystal. The law of Arizona pertinent to this inquiry is stated as follows in Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 235, 240 P. 351, 353; modified in a respect not here material, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514: "* * * the settled law of this jurisdiction, and generally, is that a transferee of an insolvent corporation takes the assets of such corporation subject to the payment of its legitimate debts and holds the same in trust for that purpose * * *."

Normally, in such instances the court will not review the transcript on appeal to search for the evidence to overturn the judgment. Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 227, 240 P. 351 modified on other grounds 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514 (1925); Grounds v. Lawe, 67 Ariz. 176, 193 P.2d 447 (1948). However, in view of the gravity of the charges against appellant in this case, the transcript has been reviewed to determine whether fundamental error occurred requiring the verdict and judgment of guilt to be overturned on the ground that there was insufficient independent prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to justify admission of those hearsay statements of Anne Chapman and Nancy Campbell which were admitted over appellant's objection.

It then declared the title to the State Bar Act of Arizona to be wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of the State Constitution relating to titles and that the act was therefore unconstitutional. Although it has been an unbroken rule of this court, so far as I know, that rehearings will not be granted where the points urged amount only to a reargument of propositions of law already considered, Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514; or to reopen the whole case in order to review a former decision, yet that seems to have been exactly what has been done in this case. No additional authorities have been cited to sustain appellee's position; no specific reason has been assigned that was not fully presented in its original brief, and no argument has been made on the rehearing that is different or at all persuasive to the effect that this court in its original opinion either misconstrued the constitutional provisions under consideration or misapplied the facts thereto.