Court Opinion

ID: 9828911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:50:38.448008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.358883
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing and in said motion has set out the testimony relied on by him as showing that there was an abandonment of the original contract. He has also made appropriate references to the record where such testimony may be found. Upon further examination of the record, we find that, while appellant testified that considerable changes were made in the plans after the work had begun, the testimony of A. J. Wilkinson shows substantially the following: The contract, as originally entered into, called for the erection of a filling station, certain tourist cabins, and a coffee shop on land belonging to Wilkinson. The walls of these buildings were to be erected out of concrete blocks to be taken from an old hotel belonging to Wilkinson. The overhead of each building was to be sealed and the roof was to be made of timbers and composition roofing. After the work was begun, Lov Vorn found that the old blocks were of unequal lengths and that it would be difficult to construct the building out of said blocks. He appealed to Wilkinson and requested that Wilkinson buy bricks with which to face the walls and that the brick be backed up with a concrete wall. This change was finally agreed to. Later on the contractor represented to Wilkinson that he could construct the roofs of the buildings 'out of reinforced concrete as cheap or cheaper than he could with timbers and composition roofing, and, upon such representation, Wilkinson agreed to the change. Later, at Wilkinson’s request, the contractor agreed to make the filling station two stories high instead of one as originally agreed to. There were also some minor, changes as to the dimensions of the buildings. Wilkinson was to pay for the additional labor and material required in the change. According to Wilkinson’s testimony, these were the only substantial changes made in the plans. In passing on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, we are required to view it in the light most favor*751able to appellee. After careful consider-ati-on, we have reached the conclusion that the changes testified to by Wilkinson were not such as would justify this court in saying, as a matter of law, that the orig-. inal contract was abandoned and a new one substituted therefor. Consequently we would not be justified in setting aside the verdict of the jury on such findings.
We therefore overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.