Court Opinion

ID: 9626002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:58:55.915198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:19.122246
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectully dissent. The record shows pleadings based on a legal action involving a promissory note only. The note appears to have been executed as a part of a general agreement for a business venture. There .was no request for nor an amendment to the pleadings. The lower court based its judgment on the equity theory of rescission, with no one inviting such a conclusion. If this conclusion were justified, the court should have gone all the way and ordered the plaintiff, in equity, to return the money he received from Miller for services, which was not due, if the contract were rendered void, as was done by the trial court.