Court Opinion

ID: 9833938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:10:15.679804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.552357
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion, we held that notwithstanding the fact that Lanier, the subcontractor, agreed with the bank that it should be subrogated to his rights in the funds due him under the contract, since there was no evidence showing that at the time of the making of such agreement there was anything due or to become due him under the contract, he qould not obligate such funds to the payment of his debts. We also held that there was no evidence showing that at the time-of the service of the notice on the highway commission that Brooks Construction Company was due anything on the particular contract under consideration.
The appellee in its motion for rehearing has called our attention to the fact that upon another trial it may be able to present evidence showing that the subcontractor had not collected the full amount due him under the contract at the time of the making of the agreement, and also that Brooks Construction Company at the time of the service of notice on the highway department was still due some funds under said contract. The motion is supported by affidavits properly explaining appellee’s failüre to develop this phase of the case on the former trial, and evidence has been furnished showing that it will probably be able to produce such testimony on another trial. Revised Statutes, article 1822. It now asks that the case be reversed and remanded in order that this phase of the case may be more fully developed.
Where, on appeal, it becomes necessary to reverse the judgment of the trial court and it appears that the case has not been fully developed, it is the duty of the appellate court to reverse and remand the case rather than, render it in order that the ends of justice may be served. This procedure has often been followed in order to allow an amendment of the pleadings, show jurisdiction, or supply additional testimony. Associated Oil Co. v. Hart (Tex. Com. App.) 277 S. W. 1043, pars. 6 and 7; Combes v. Stringer, 106 Tex. 427, 167 S. W. 217, par. 3; Hanks v. Hamman (Tex. Com. App.) 289- S. W. 993, 994; Saner-Whiteman Lumber Co; v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. 127; 3 Tex. Jur. 1231. It may be that upon another trial of the case, the appellees will be able to more fully develop this phase of the case.
The judgment heretofore entered affirming the judgment of the trial court to the extent that the bank take nothing against the defendants Gray Lanier and T. P. Sherman, and *86in favor of the bank against H. G. Lanier for its debt, will be allowed to stand; and the judgment in favor of the bank against B. E. Brooks Constrriction Company and Southern Surety Company of New York is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.