Court Opinion

ID: 9829202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:04:50.14595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:58.297983
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The Surety Company insists that we erred in holding that Johnson and Presley were entitled to recover the thousand dollars deposited with it. The last agreement, or, as it is termed by the Surety Company, “the receipt for the money,” was never pleaded by the Surety Company as against Presley and Johnson, but against Helm alone. Its suit against Helm was dismissed. The record does not show that this collateral agreement was ever ratified or acquiesced in by Presley or Johnson, but, on the contrary, it is shown that Presley knew nothing of it until about the time the suit was instituted, and that Johnson could not read it. The thousand dollars was deposited with the Surety Company to indemnify it as surety upon the bond of Plelm under the first contract. Without the consent of Presley and Johnson, the Surety Company entered into the second contract, and both buildings were constructed as under one contract. This is such an alteration of the indemnity contract as would release Presley and Johnson.
We believe the questions presented have been correctly disposed of, and the motions for rehearing are overruled.