Court Opinion

ID: 9827265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:20:47.538778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:27.941868
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Since it is not necessary to a decision of the case, we withdraw our conclusions as expressed in the original opinion, “the institution of this suit by King, the holder of the legal title, against appellants, who had defaulted in the payment of the vendor’s lien note, within itself constituted a rescission,” and “the fact that the original vendor’s lien note may have been barred by limitation at the time of the institution of this suit” did not bar the right of rescission. We are satisfied as to the soundness of our conclusion that Johnson rescinded the same before the notes became barred by limitation and after the rescission sold to King, and that King, under that sale, entered possession and made the improvements. From this it would follow, of course, that there was no issue of limitation in the case.