Court Opinion

ID: 9827157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:14:01.535379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:24.975015
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Since the rendition of the original opinion in this case, appellants have employed other counsel, who have filed an able and persuasive motion for rehearing, praying that the original opinion and the judgment of this court, dismissing this cause, be set aside, the case reset for submission, and upon submission the trial court’s judgment reversed and remanded. We are of the opinion that our former holding was correct and that the equities presented in the motion are not such as to cause us to override the statutes and rules of court providing for the proper briefing of cases.
In deference to the urgent insistence of counsel, we have again reviewed the record to ascertain if there is fundamental error apparent of record for which the cause should be reversed.
Appellants insist that the issue submitted by the trial court, “Did the promoting defendants, in soliciting the subscribing defendants to subscribe for stock, represent to said subscribing defendants that in the company they were organizing there would be no individual liability for the debts of the concern?” and the jury’s affirmative answer thereto, present no cause of action, for the reason that, at most, it was only the opinion of the promoting defendants upon a question of law and would not be actionable misrepresentation.
The record discloses that appellants were in charge of the matter of the organization of a community telephone exchange; that they did make the representations complained of. They were naturally in the position of knowing what they were doing and of being able to advise as to what they would do or were going to do. When they represented that in,the concern they were organizing there would be no individual liability, they were making representations, not of law, but of fact. It cannot be said that such an organization could not have been created. It could have been done by following out the provisions of our statutes on limited partnerships or by taking steps to give parties with whom they were dealing actual notice of the provisions relating to nonliability of the stockholders individually. Edward Thompson Co. v. Sawyers, 111 Tex. 378, 234 S. W. 874; Moreland v. Atchison, 19 Tex. 311.
We have carefully considered the other grounds set out in the motion, and hereby overrule the motion in all things.