Court Opinion

ID: 9832916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:17:50.40157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:55.289996
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing by Appellant and Appellees.
Appellees contend that we were in error in holding that the burden of proof rested upon them to make the showing required under article 2971a, R. S. 1879 (Laws 1885, c. 65) as a prerequisite to their right to do business as a mutual relief association, citing Legion of Honor v. Story, 97 Tex. 264, 78 S. W. 1, and Grand Lodge v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 362.
The distinction between those cases and the case at bar is that there it was shown that the defendants were mutual relief associations, and such being a fact, the burden rested upon plaintiffs, who sought to collect the statutory penalty and attorney’s fees, to show that the associations had failed to file the requisite reports under article 2971a. We have here a different case. Appellee corporation did not file the reports. It is true it offered to do so, and that fact may excuse it from such filing; but we do not. think it was relieved from showing the contents of such proffered reports, or, in any event, the facts which the article required such reports to show. As pointed out in our original opinion, certain facts were shown by the record, and from these facts it appeared that large sums of money were collected which did not go to the beneficiaries. No showing whatever was made as to how these funds were expended as provided for in subdivisions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the article. These facts were peculiarly within the knowledge of the corporation; and we believe the burden was on it to show how’ these funds were expended, so that the court might pass on the question whether it was a mutual relief association within the purview of the article; or was operated for profit of its officers.
The state contends in its motion that since appellee corporation failed tb meet this burden, it was entitled to judgment; and we should therefore render such judgment as the trial court should have rendered under the agreed statement of facts. Whether the Court of Civil Appeals upon 'reversing the judgment of the trial court should render judgment for the appellant depends upon whether it appears from the record that the case has been fully .developed, and the appellant is entitled to recover as a matter of law under any theory which the record presents or might present. It is manifest from the agreed statement of facts that, the case has not been developed upon the issue of whether appellee corporation was operated for profit; the record being silent as above stated with reference to the expenditure of its funds. Under these circumstances, it is the uniform practice to remand the case for further trial.
Buzard v. Bank, 67 Tex. 83, 2 S. W. 54, 60 Am. Rep. 7; Ry. v. Seabold (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 229, and authorities there cited.
Both motions are overruled.
Overruled.