Court Opinion

ID: 9828236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:38.719343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.206565
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In an opinion filed June 30, 1924, this court disposed of this case in the manner shown by such opinion. In appellants’ motion for rehearing, the attention of this court was first called to the opinion in the case of Lyon-Gray Lbr. Co. v. Gibralter Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 247 S. W. 652, in which it was held that the amendment to article 1206, Revised Statutes, by the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, authorizing a judgment against a dissolved corporation on a suit for a claim that was pending prior to the dissolution, did not apply to a corporation that had been dissolved at a date preceding this enactment. It was urged that under authority of this case this court was in error in affirming the judgment against a dissolved corporation, for the reason that said enactment was not passed until 1919 and that the first Chevrolet corporation was legally dissolved on September 16, 1916, as stated in the opinion in this case.
As a writ of error had been granted by the Supreme Court in said cause, and said cause had been transferred to the Commission of Appeals and already set for submission, this court deeemed it wise to await the opinion of said court before acting on the motion for rehearing. On February 18, 1925, the Commission of Appeals rendered its judgment on approval by the Supreme Court, in which the case of Lyon-Gray Lumber v. Gibraltar Life Ins. Co., 269 S. W. 80, was reversed and the doctrine announced sustaining this court’s disposition of that issue. In re-examining this issue on this motion for rehearing wo have discovered that we were in error in stating that this suit was originally filed in the district court subsequent to the dissolution of tile old Chevrolet corporation. The original petition was filed by appellee against the old Chevrolet Motor Company on September 11, 1916, and the corporation was not dissolved until September 16, 1916, so that, at the time of the dissolution of said corporation, this was a pending suit.
We have carefully examined both the motion for rehearing filed by appellant and the one filed by appellee, with the result that we adhere to the former disposition of this case, and the motion of each party is overruled.