Court Opinion

ID: 9830485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:14:42.643792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:06.608664
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The trial judge found that at the time the oil company opened the account with plaintiff for the purchase of the building material afterwards furnished “there was no agreement between the parlies as to when the debt would become due-other than it should be paid along during the fall as had been the account the’year before.” But the court further found that the account did become due October 7, 1913.
In our opinion on original hearing those findings were accepted as correct, and the statement in that opinion that the material was sold under an agreement between the parties “that the amount of indebtedness therefor should be paid on October 7, 1913,” was intended merely as a brief summary of those findings. We did not intend to convey the idea that before the material was sold the parties specifically agreed on October 7, 1913, as the date of payment for such material.
Plaintiff in error now insists that there was proof tending to show that the property upon which it claimed a lien was worth more than the amount secured by the prior and superior liens for which the property was sold and bought in by W. A. McCall. The facts relied on to show this were the purchases by McCall of other and subsequent liens mentioned in our original opinion. But the record does not show that such purchases were offered as proof of value of the property, nor is there any showing of the prices paid. The finding of the trial judge quoted in our original opinion that there was an absence of proof of such values clearly shows that the facts now urged by plaintiff in error as evidence on that issue were not considered proof of that fact, if considered at all, and that finding has not been attacked by any assignment of error in the record.
The motion of plaintiff in error is overruled.