Court Opinion

ID: 9830203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:58:39.196169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:15.917540
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a motion for rehearing, appellants urgently complain of-the statement in our opinion that Verschoyle “looked entirely to Holifield and the funds due Holifield on the project for reimbursement of the moneys advanced by him,” on the ground that the record discloses an agreement made by appellants with Holifield, on the faith of which Verschoyle advanced further moneys, that Verschoyle and those associated with him should as to such advances for Holifield’s benefit be subrogated to all the claims and rights of Holifield’s creditors to fix a lien on the retained funds.
*913The record does disclose such agreement, but it does not, we think, materially alter the statement made. It merely indicates that Verschoyle was seeking additional security for the moneys advanced to Holifield to enable him to perform his contract. These advancements were to be repaid out of the funds released to Holi-field under his contract, or that accrued under such contract. The fact remains that Verschoyle was still under no legal liability to pay Holifield’s debts. He volunteered to do so, but took no assignment from Holifield’s creditors of their claims or liens. That being true, the cases cited in our opinion, we think, control.
The other contentions made have been considered by us heretofore and need not be further discussed. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.