Court Opinion

ID: 9715379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:02:57.461998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:34.344502
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
Royse, J.
I am inclined to agree with the opinion of Judge Crumpacker as to Paragraph 2 of the answer of appellees in this case. However, I have a different view as to Paragraph 5 of said answer. Certainly the parties had a right to amend their original contract and provide that the payment of the full commission was contingent upon the payment by Neelys of the $11,000. (I agree that in the absence of any such agreement and where the time of payment was based on the happening of a future event, if such event does not happen the law imposes a promise to pay within a reasonable time.) However, in my opinion this paragraph of answer alleged that appellants agreed to make the payment of the full commission contingent upon the payment of the $11,000. It also averred that appellants retained only $300 out of the first payment of $5,000 as a partial payment of their commission. On the record before us the parties hereto regarded this paragraph as making said payment contingent upon *397the payment of the $11,000, because each introduced evidence on this subject. The evidence at the trial is in sharp conflict on this question.
I do not think it necessary or proper to consider these two paragraphs of answer together.
I believe there is ground for reversal because of the overruling of the demurrer to the 2nd paragraph of answer.
Note. — Reported in 138 N» E. 2d 913.
Transfer denied, Achor, C. J. dissents (without opinion.)