Court Opinion

ID: 9448027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:20:24.718717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:15.534312
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for rehearing points out that, after this case was argued and submitted to the Court, to-wit, on May 16, 1961, the Legislature of the State of Texas enacted the Uniform Partnership Act, contrary to the statement contained in our opinion dated May 30, 1961.
The section mentioned in the Uniform Partnership Act did not in any way enter into our consideration of this case on the merits. We concluded that the undisputed dealings and relationship between the parties created the relationship of partners under applicable Texas decisions. Nevertheless, in the interest of accuracy, we strike the following paragraph from the opinion:
“Finally, appellee urges that this Court should find that the Texas law has changed and that there should no longer be a distinction between what constitutes a partnership as between the parties themselves on the one hand, and as to third parties on the other. In effect appellee is urging that we should find that the uniform partnership' act, heretofore adopted in several states, is now the law of Texas, notwithstanding the refusal of the Legislature of that state to adopt it. Such an argument, of course, has no place in a discussion of what the law is under the Texas decisions.”
Appellees now, for the first time on appeal, contend that corporations cannot legally stand as partners in relation to each other in Texas. This point was not alluded to in the original' brief and was not presented to the Court *586in oral argument. It cannot now be raised for the first time by motion for rehearing.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, dissents.