Court Opinion

ID: 9827718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:47:57.088363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.171564
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing, appellant insists that the finding of this court in the original opinion to .the effect that the clause in the letter addressed by Squires, vice president of appellant, to Parker, president of appellee, in reference to the said note, to wit, “We also will take it up from you at any timé you need the money,” was the offer of appellant and not the individual offer of the writer of the letter, is a finding without any evidence to sustain it, and contrary to the evidence in the record. To this contention we cannot agree. Both the said Parker and the said Squires were dead at the time of the trial of this case, and the meaning of this clause must be deduced from its wording and the circumstances existing at the time the letter was written. It was written by the active vice president of appellant, who negotiated the note that the Empire Drug Company executed in favor of appellant, and the negotiation of which was the subject-matter of this letter. The writer signed his name to the letter as vice president. He was writing to the president of appellee in reference to a proposition that concerned appellant, for it was the sole owner' of the note at the time the letter was written. It was also written on the bank’s regular stationery, and, while the appellant’s said vice president owned stock in the Empire Drug Company, this fact is not mentioned in the letter and is not shown to have been known to appellee. This is the status of the record in this respect, and we think the finding about which complaint is made is the only one that could have been made from the circumstances surrounding the writing of the letter.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.