Court Opinion

ID: 9831655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:17.993916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.808797
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
We see no reason to recede from our views expressed in the original, opinion as to appellant’s right to recover the amount paid in satisfaction of the judgment against him; but as to the sum of $50, paid at the time he contracted to purchase the automobile, we think the trial court should have rendered judgment in his favor. On the original hearing we considered only his right to recover back the amount paid under the judgment, but a re-examination of the assignment of error convinces us that it is broad enough to cover the $50 item as well. When this initial sum was paid, the appellant was, of course, a minor, and the undisputed facts show that upon reaching his majority he promptly disaffirmed and elected to rescind the contract of purchase. The evidence establishes the fact that if the machine was not absolutely worthless it had been duly tendered back to the appellees, both before and after appellant áttained his majority. Appellees have not answered this contention of appellant, and we see no reason why 'judgment should not' now be rendered in his favor for this item.
Rehearing granted, judgment of the lower court reversed, and judgment here rendered for appellant for the sum of $50, together with all costs.