Court Opinion

ID: 9661215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:32:24.609005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.377229
License: Public Domain

*644ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In its motion for rehearing, B & R insists that a recovery in its behalf could be sustained upon the theory of mutual mistake if not upon the theory of fraud. Assuming for the purposes of argument that B & R’s pleadings could be construed as alleging mutual mistake, the case was submitted to the jury and determined by it on the basis of intentional fraud. In any event, we remain convinced of the soundness of our ruling. As stated in our original opinion,
“If B & R paid $270,000.00 for the land knowing that it contained less than 90 acres, it has not been misled and its cause of action, as pleaded, for money had and received necessarily fails. . . . the confirmation of the bargain after discovery of the acreage shortage removed the elements of mistake or deception from the transaction, . . (Emphasis added.)
Whether based on fraud or mutual mistake, the basis of a cause of action in B & R’s behalf must have been that it was misled— that it paid the agreed price for the land believing it was getting more than it received. The confirmation of the bargain with full knowledge of the facts removed any such basis.
The motion for rehearing is respectfully overruled.