Court Opinion

ID: 9827143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:12:58.539764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:34.406865
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
We have concluded that the record did not warrant the construction given it in the original opinion to the effect that the contract of employment, as shown by the order made at February term, 1890, was merely suspended by the order taking the land off the market made at the May term, 1892. We are now of the opinion that the employment to survey and sell the school lands of Young County provided for in the first order was terminated by the second order made two years later. The most that can be claimed for the original contract of employment is that it entitled defendant in error to a reasonable opportunity to sell the lands and thus obtain compensation for the labor and expense of surveying and subdividing the same; for it seems to be well settled by the authorities that the power given him to sell was not a power coupled with an interest so as to render it irrevocable. If a period of two years was not a reasonable time for the accomplishment of the purpose of the employment, defendant in error failed to show that fact, and thus failed to make out his ease, the burden being on him to show that Young County had acted unfairly in terminating his employment without giving him reasonable opportunity to earn compensation for what he had undertaken to dn and had in part done under that employment. But if he had shown that in taking the land off the market at the May term 1892 Young County unjustly deprived him of the opportunity to earn the commissions provided for in the order entered at the February term 1890, his cause of action was barred by limitation when this suit was brought M&y 17, 1904.
The rehearing sought is therefore granted and the judgment affirmed on the conclusions heretofore filed, modified as above indicated.

Motion granted and judgment affirmed.

Writ of error refused.