Court Opinion

ID: 9829557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:25:41.301427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:02.884849
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants in their motion for a rehearing insist that a proper construction of all the testimony sustains their contention that the trade last made with Burke contained a mutual understanding that'the terms were to be the same as the terms of the trade first made and repudiated by him. They say that the proof, all taken and considered together, will reasonably and fairly support no other conclusion except that the terms were understood by the parties to be exactly the same except as to the price per acre, and that therefore the trade was in exact conformity with the listing agreement made. Upon reconsideration of the evidence we are inclined to concede the correctness of this position.
We believe the evidence might be said to bear the construction for which appellants contend.
Appellants also insist, with equal zeal, that the trade proved by their testimony was the trade pleaded by them, and that a proper understanding of the evidence destroys the idea of any variance. To this view we do not accede. We do not believe the evidence to the effect that the trade was agreed upon in the summer of 1918 that Burke should receive $8,000 or $10,000 and receive the balance on January 1, 1919, when the trade was to be consummated, no notes being executed, proves the allegation that the land was sold for cash and notes — cash enough to enable Burke “to cash the notes” for the remainder of the consideration.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.