Court Opinion

ID: 9831469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:01.87589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.215959
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant insists that our opinion in this case is in conflict with the holding of the Supreme Court in Belton Compress Co. v. Saunders, 70 Tex. 699, 6 S. W. 134, and with thé holdings of the Courts of Civil Appeals in Steely v. Texas Improvement Co., 55 Tex. Civ. App. 463, 119 S. W. 319, and Bohn v. Burton-Lingo Co., 175 S. W. 173.
We had already considered carefully all of these cases. In none of them was the question here raised involved. Quoted excerpts from these opinions might indicate a conflict, but on analysis none exists. We have already referred to the Steely Case in our opinion. In the Belton Compress Co. Case, after incorporation, Saunders refused to pay his subscription on the ground that at the- time the charter was granted authorizing a capital stock of $100,000, all of said capital stock had not been subscribed. It appears that when about $34,000 had been subscribed the subscribers, including Saunders, met, elected officers, decided to incorporate at once, procured a charter, and proceeded to build the compress. No attempt was ever shown to have been made by him to withdraw his subscription prior to incorporation. In Bohn v. Burton-Lingo Co., the question raised was whether or not a creditor could enforce as against a subscriber full payment of his subscription, where the subscriber had refused payment of his subscription after incorporation, on the ground of fraud by the promoters in procuring such subscription. In that case the question of cancellation after incorporation was involved, and the subscriber had not attempted to revoke the subscription prior to the incorporation.
It is manifest, therefore, that the question involved in this case was not raised in those cases, and any declarations in those opinions are not therefore applicable'to the one vital question raised in the present case.
Appellant’s motion is overruled.
Overruled.