Court Opinion

ID: 9830591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:18:34.87438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.645511
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we announced the following conclusion, to wit:
“The lease was at the time of the assignment reasonably worth $14,000, the amount for which it was sold.”
Further in the opinion we say:
“Colquitt sold his entire interest in the 40-acre lease for $14,000, its value at the time.”
The correctness of this conclusion is challenged by appellant in written argument supporting its motion for rehearing, in the following language:
“If the court meant to find that at the time of the contract between appellee and appellant the lease was worth $14,000 in cash, ’such is not the testimony, and certainly not the undisputed testimony, in the record, and the court should, amend its finding in this respect to conform to the record.”
Responding to this challenge, we call attention to the testimony of appellee, the only witness who expressed an opinion as to the value of the lease at the time of the sale. He said:
“At the time of the sale to the Simms-Compa-ny, I considered the agreed price a fair value.”
He also- testified to a circumstance touching the value of the lease, as follows:
“Before we got the abstract covering the second tract cleared up and accepted by the Simms Oil Company, I was asked if I would take $20,-000 for the lease and I had to answer the party making the offer that I had already sold to the Simms Oil Company. I had agreed to sell it to them. They had not given me any evidence in writing that they would accept it, as they had done on the first tract, but I considered myself bound under my verbal contract and agreement with them and therefore I had to refuse a better price.”
This witness could have been, but was not, cross-examined in regard to the responsibility of the person making the offer, or as to whether it was an offer to purchase for cash or for oil to be produced, or as to the nature of the offer — that is, whether it was a bona fide offer to buy or was made by an agpnt feeling out the situation. No attempt was made to weaken the testimony of this witness by cross-examination, hence the fact as established by this evidence stands that a short time after appellee agreed to sell the lease in question to appellant for $14,000, half cash and half to be paid in oil, he was offered, by a person desiring to buy, $20,000 for the same property.
In addition to this, the parties agreed that the property was of the value of $14,000, as shown by the recited consideration in the assignment. The evidence, in our opinion, justified the conclusion; in fact, we are at a loss to understand how any other could have been reached.
After carefully considering appellant’s motion for rehearing, argument and supplemental citation of authorities in support thereof, we find no reason to change the decision heretofore announced; therefore the motion for rehearing is overruled.