Court Opinion

ID: 9827019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:04:21.080924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:55.823716
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
All defendants have joined in a motion for rehearing in this cause. We have carefully.studied the motion and find nothing which leads us to believe that we have not properly disposed of the case.
Our attention has been called to an expression -used in the ■ opinion which is claimed not to be supported by the record. At one place in the opinion we stated substantially that certain correspondence between Scannell and Albritton, the dates of which we mentioned, showed that Albritton replied to an offer made by Scannell, agreeing to accept $150 for his deferred oil payment growing out of the sale which Scan-nell claims was fairly made, and that on October 28th, 1939, Scannell wrote Albrit-ton to send his oil -payment letter attached to a draft for that amount. We said: “This was done and Scannell acquired plaintiff’s deferred oil payment for that price.” Defendants say that the record does not show that the deal was ever closed, and hence our quoted statement is not supported by the record. The contention is correct and we withdraw the quoted statement in the interest of clarity.
With the correction made as indicated, the joint motion for rehearing, is overruled.