Court Opinion

ID: 9827499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:36:15.099682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:32.324928
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a motion for a rehearing appellants challenge the correctness of the following statement made in the original opinion:
“The parol provisions here assailed relate only to the length of time which that contract might remain open for performance. The designation of a definite period of time for its performance was not a feature assential to the validity of the contract, if otherwise in proper *505form. Hence a parol agreement waiving or modifying that provision was not an alteration which must be in writing.”
[4] It is the statement of facts made in the above extract which is assailed. It is true complaint was made by the appellants of the admission of testimony tending to show that a parol agreement had been made which modified the consideration to be paid to the appellants. We regarded the admission of that testimony as unimportant in determining the controlling questions in this appeal. The trial was before the court without a jury, and the suit was not to enforce the terms of the contract, but to recover the damages stipulated in the original writing. It was not necessary to prove a consideration different from that expressed in the writing in order to sustain the plaintiffs’ demand for damages. The rights which they asserted were conferred by the writing itself, the controlling question being: Was that writing still a valid, subsisting agreement?
The motion is overruled.