Court Opinion

ID: 9650776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:51:35.356318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:56.923781
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Before L. Hand and Swan, Circuit Judges, and Campbell, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
A rehearing was ordered in this ease, because only two judges had taken part in the original decision. After a second argument, the merits of the case have been reconsidered at large, but without change in result. The question turns upon the meaning of the contract, particularly of the fourth article. We can see nothing to add to-our original discussion! It is, of course, possible that the second sentence of that article was thrown in out of abundant caution and without intent to affeet the parties’ rights. That, however, is not to be assumed while it can have a reasonable intendment.
We say nothing as to the validity of a bill which should allege that Lane, Wolters, and Storey had ceased to have any interest in the contract or its performance.
Decree affirmed.