Court Opinion

ID: 9834459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:36:54.765096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.908284
License: Public Domain

On Second Motion for Rehearing.
In this motion the appellee insists that the original opinion written in this case does not fully state some of the material fact's. In order to prevent- any unfair disadvantage which might otherwise result, we have granted permission to file and have considered the second motion for a rehearing. Upon a reexamination of the evidence, we think appel-lee’s construction of his own testimony is correct. According to that testimony, Mus-grove did agree to accept 200 bales of the cotton from the samples before him, and to phone the tag numbers and shipping instructions to appellee the next day. This was not done. However, we do not think that fact requires • an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. The cause of action here prosecuted is not one for the purchase price of cotton tendered by the appellee and accepted by the appellant, but is a suit for the refusal to purchase the cotton according to the previous contract. The refusal constituting the cause of action is not the one relating to furnishing shipping instructions, but to accepting the cotton. If the place of the rejection of the samples tendered by the appel-lee be of any importance, that, according to the evidence, occurred at Dallas.
The motion is overruled.