On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee in his motion for rehearing insists that we erred in our -original opinion in holding that appellee, by reason of his being a stockholder in the Alamo Oil & Refining Company, was personally liable on the note of said company to the First State Bank of Eastland, although the cashier of said bank, who took said note and extended credit to said company, did’ so with full knowledge that the declaration of trust under which the Alamo Oil & Refining Company operated provided that the stockholders should not be personally liable for debts of the company. On this point we hold to our original opinion, believing that the Victor Refining Co. et al. v. City National Bank (Tex. Sup.) 274 S. W. 561, is directly in point, and settles this question against the contention of appellee.
Appellee further insists that this court erred in reversing judgment of the lower court and rendering judgment in favor of appellant. We think this assignment is well taken. The defendant in his answer pleads several defenses, among which was a contract with the bank that it was to look only to the assets of the company for payment and not to the individual stockholders.
There being no statement of facts in the record, this court cannot determine whether or not the evidence supported one or more or all of the defenses pleaded: Gentry v. Schneider, 77 Tex. 2, 13 S. W. 614; Harrison v. Friar (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 251.
It is well settled that, upon the reversal of the judgment of the trial, an appellate court will not render judgment for appellant, unless it conclusively appears that the case has been fully developed.
There being no statement of facts in this dase, the trial court, doubtless relying upon the provisions in the declaration of trust that no stockholder should be liable, decided the case upon.that issue alone, and, therefore, did not permit the defense to fully develop this case.
It is well-settled law of our state that a cause should be remanded rather than rendered, where justice will probably be better subserved by so doing. Dayle L. Smith Oil Co. v. Continental Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 489; Shelton v. Montoya Oil & Gas Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 272 S. W. 222; Oden v. Bone (Tex. Civ. App.) 263 S. W. 640; George v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 174.
We conclude that we were in error in rendering judgment against appellee, and rehearing on that part is granted, and we now reverse and remand the cause for another trial.