Court Opinion

ID: 9827335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:25:19.787568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.384365
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant argues in the motion for rehearing that, since Elsea did not plead the division order as a part of the contract, then he cannot recover under the conclusion stated, in our opinion that the division order, together with the two letters that passed be-' tween Elsea and Elliott, Jones & Co., should be construed together as forming the contract between the parties, because the evidence does not conform to the pleading. It is true that Elsea did not plead the division order as a part of the contract sued on by him. He alleged that Elliott, Jones & Co., as shown by the letters,'copies of which were attached to his petition as exhibits, • agreed to purchase his oil and pay therefor the sum of $1.75 per barrel.- He relied on the letters, and still relies on' them, as supporting these allegations. On the other hand, the defendant was relying on the division order as superseding any agreement expressed in the letters. Our conclusion as stated, was that the division order did not supersede the agreement stated in the letters, but became a part of the contract and should be construed in connection with the letters. But as plaintiff was not relying on the division order, and does not rely on it, as an embodiment of the specific agreement on which he was suing, his failure to plead it as a part of the contract ought not to preclude him from recovery, when it has been determined that there was nothing in the division order that changed the particular part of the agreement evidenced by the letters on which recovery was sought.
Other matters mentioned in the motion for rehearing have been sufficiently considered in the original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.