
    HOLLISTER et al. v. McCAMEY.
    (No. 3829.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    June 24, 1925.)
    1. Joint-stock companies and business trusts <®=»I5(I) — Articles of association in form of declaration of trust held to create joint-stock company, of which shareholders were liable as partners.
    Articles of association in form of declaration of trust, conveying legal title of assets to .trustees and investing management of business in hands of such trustees, who were authorized to incur indebtedness, and reserving to the holders of certificates of stock power to amend articles of association, held to create joint-stock company, of which shareholders were liable as partners.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Joint-Stock Company.]
    2. Joint-stock companies and business trusts <§=^>1 — Articles of association in form of declaration of trust-held to create “partnership.”
    Articles of association in form of declaration of trust, giving trustees power to do any act necessary or proper to effect purposes specified in declaration or amendments thereto, but reserving to shareholders the power, by majority vote, to alter or amend the declaration, held to create “partnership.”
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Partnership.]
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
    Suit by George B. McCamey against Warren H. Hollister and others. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed (241 S. W. 689) the district court’s judgment adverse to plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    Goree, Ojiell & Allen and Ernest May, all of Fort Worth, and Walker & Baker, of Cle-burne, for plaintiffs in error.
    Thompson, Barwise, Wharton & Hiner and Arthur Collins, all of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.
   GREENWOOD, J.

The single question in this case is whether the shareholders in the Hollister Oil Company, including plaintiffs in error, became liable for a debt incurred under a drilling contract between defendant in error and the Hollister Oil Company. Under an agreed statement of facts, the liability of the shareholders was madel to depend on whether, as a matter of law, a certain writing, copied on pages 691 to 694, in volume 241 of the Southwestern Reporter, under which the oil company was doing business, created a joint-stock company or a common-law trust, and, if it created the former, whether it made the shareholders in the company liable as partners for the company’s debts.

The trial court held that the oil company was a common-law trust, and denied defendant in error a personal judgment against plaintiffs in error. The Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, and rendered judgment for defendant in error against plaintiff in error, as well as against the Hollister Oil Co., 241 S. W. 700. The conclusions reached by the Court of Civil Appeals in an admirable opinion of Judge Dunklin are in harmony with our disposition to-day of similar questions in the case of Thompson v. Schmitt, 114 Tex. -, 274 S. W. 554. Under the rules announced in that case, plaintiffs in error are liable as partners for the debts of the Hol-lister Oil Company, including the debt to defendant in error.

One ground of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, not involved in the case of Thompson v. Schmitt, was that the articles of association conferred such control on the shareholders over the company and its business as to prevent a decision that the articles of association created a trust under the refined rule which it would seem would be applied in Massachusetts. In this view we also concur. The vitally important pow; er to increase the capital with which the business was to be done was dependent on. express authorization of a majority of the stockholders. The trustees were empowered to do any act necessary or proper to effect the purposes specified, either in the declaration of trust or in any amendments thereof, and the shareholders by majority vote, could) alter or amend the declaration of trust. The trustees were therefore certainly subject to the control of the certificate holders, and under the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts the company would be regarded as a partnership. Neville v. Gifford, 242 Mass. 127, 136 N. E. 160; Frost v. Thompson, 219 Mass. 365, 366, 106 N. E. 1009; Morehead v. Greenville Exch. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 546; Feldman v. American Dist. Telegraph Co. (Tex. Civ.-App.) 257 S. W. 930.

The argument for plaintiffs in error reflects much zeal and marked ability. All the points presented are disposed) of by the opinion in the Thompson v. Schmitt Case.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is in all things affirmed. 
      (§^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in. all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     