Case Name: Arthur P. Fielding et al., Appellants, v. M. V. Williamson et al., Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1925-04-21
Citations: 118 Kan. 411
Docket Number: No. 25,493
Parties: Arthur P. Fielding et al., Appellants, v. M. V. Williamson et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
No. 25,493.
Arthur P. Fielding et al., Appellants, v. M. V. Williamson et al., Appellees.
OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
Appeal from Riley district court; Fred R. Smith, judge.
Opinion denying a rehearing filed April 21, 1925.
(For original opinion of reversal see ante, p. 44, 234 Pac. 1003.)
R. P. Evans, and George Clammer, both of Manhattan, for the appellants.
Hal E. Harlan, and A. M. Johnston, both of Manhattan, for the appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dawson, J.:
Appellees present a motion for a rehearing, which prompts us to make a minor modification of a matter mentioned in our first opinion (ante, p. 44). We said that the contract itself characterized the corn to be delivered as "September com." That statement may be inaccurate. The price to be paid was to be determined on the basis of the price of Kansas City September corn, according to the terms and stipulations of the contract, but whether the corn which was the subject of this bargain and sale could prop-' erly be characterized as "September corn" this court has insufficient information to decide.
Appellants also call attention to a matter which needs correction. In holding that the evidence presented in plaintiffs' behalf did not permit the cause to be disposed of on demurrer and required its submission to a jury, the court inadvertently conceded that it was possible the dealings of the parties were susceptible of being construed as mere options and that the question whether they were such or not was for a jury to decide. This was an error. The construction of a contract is a question of law, and we must take the responsibility of holding unequivocally that the contract evidenced an outright bargain and sale, not a mere option, and it was fully executed in all its parts except in the matter of fixing and paying the price, which was to' be ascertained and paid in accordance with the contract terms.
With these corrections of our first opinion, however, we see no reason to grant a rehearing, and it is therefore denied.