Mrs. Harris, having transferred her shares of stock to the guaranty fund of the Lloyds of Texas in discharge of her subscription agreement for the purpose of creating a surplus or reserve is estopped, as against creditors of the exchange, to assert any private agreement that said stock was merely transferred as collateral to secure a part of her subscription. Shaw v. Borchers, 46 S.W.2d 967; Reeves v. Powell, 267 S.W. 328; Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n. v. Clayton Co., 117 Tex. 414, 6 S.W.2d 1029. William H. Flippen, and Dan T. Johnston, both of Dallas, filed briefs as amicus curiae.
See also Notes "II" Annotations under First Nat. Bank v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159, 264 P. 184, 64 A.L.R. 588, 601. As said in the second opinion, the Shaw v. Borchers case [46 S.W.2d 969], the banking commissioner being plaintiff: "Now, when insolvency has supervened, if defendant in error is permitted to show that his note was not what it purported to be, but was mere accommodation paper, the creditors of this bank will receive $5,000 less than they would have received if his paper had been what he, by his conduct, represented it to be. Under such circumstances, fairness and justice demand that defendant in error should be estopped from availing himself of the defense that the renewal note, which he led the banking department to believe to be a real asset of the bank, is but a mere scrap of paper.