Court Opinion

ID: 9832116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:37:49.783958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:42.225257
License: Public Domain

On Motion for. Rehearing.
It is insisted in the motion that "the evidence (quoting) was conclusive and uncon-tradicted that the entire negotiations with reference to the contract were between Wilson and appellant' R. H. McCrary,” and that this court was in error when it said such negotiations were between ai>pellant J. E. Southerland and Wilson. We think it of no importance whether the negotiations were with the one or the other of the partners, but, to correct an inaccuracy hereby conceded to exist in the opinion, here now state it appeared the oral negotiations of Wilson referred to were not with Southerland alone but with both him and McCrary, and mainly, perhaps, with the latter.
The motion is overruled.