Court Opinion

ID: 9830126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:54:11.421249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:13.511961
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we state:
' “They finally agreed that O’Donnell would purchase another eighty-acre tract and that Siegrist would also purchase him an eighty-acre tract. That these two new tracts would be set out in young trees and that Siegrist would take care of the three tracts.”
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, challenges this statement as being unsupported by the uncontradicted evidence. It is true that Siegrist did testify that he did not .agree to this arrangement. We have set out a large part of the correspondence between. O’Donnell and Siegrist leading up to the purchase of the 80-acre tract by O’Donnell, out of which Siegrist made a secret profit, of $2,000.
It is clear from this correspondence that O’Donnell believed that Sieg'rist had agreed to this partnership and that O’Donnell was trusting Siegrist as a partner throughout ■this entire transaction.
Siegrist was bound to know that O’Donnell was making this deal upon the belief that he, Siegrist, had entered into this partnership and it became the duty of Sie-grist to inform; O’Donnell of his mistake. Siegrist, by his silence and by his affirmative acts in inducing O’Donnell to make this purchase, is not now in a position to contend that he never expressly agreed to the partnership. Therefore we adhere to our original finding that throughout this transaction Siegrist was the partner, or at least the agent, of O’Donnell.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.