Court Opinion

ID: 9833716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:57:53.601314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.139629
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Plaintiff’s original petition was improperly copied in the transcript' and through inadvertence we referred to it as the petition upon which the suit was tried, instead of the amended petition, a copy of which is also included in the transcript.
There was no variance between the proof and the contract alleged in the latter pleading, and what we said in our former opinion upon that question was inapplicable to the case as pleaded in the amended petition.
However, as shown in our former opinion, the failure of defendant to consummate the proposed sale to Hart at twenty dollars per acre has been prevented solely by the acts of plaintiff in levying the writ of attachment, and for this reason, independent of any other, the trial court erred in rendering judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff was made the exclusive agent of defendant to sell the property would make no difference. 19 Cyc., 267; Mechem on Agency, sec. 965. Behearing denied.

Reversed and remanded.