Court Opinion

ID: 9830658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:21:59.615297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.319641
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing the appellant calls attention to two letters written during April, 1907, one by Thompson and the other by Bomar as the agent of Jones; and insists that these should be treated as sufficient to show the adoption of the written contract by virtue of which Jones now claims to hold the note in controversy. That contract provided that the options sold to Thompson were to expire January 1, 1907. These letters were written more than three months after that time. It can hardly be said that they should be looked to as constituting an adoption of a contract which by its own terms had ceased to be operative. Jones, or his agent, Bomar, at that time had possession of the contract.
[2] Had Jones then desired its adoption for the government of their future transactions, he could easily have made that manifest by affixing his signature and giving notice .to Thompson. This' he failed to do. His failure in the first instance to sign the contract was either intentional or due to an oversight. If intentional, then he is in no attitude to now claim the benefit of its terms. If due to an oversight, that excuse was no longer available after his attention was called to the failure by the correspondence to which -he now refers. Instead of those letters furnishing evidence of the adoption of the contract, they tend to establish the contrary.
The motion is overruled.