Court Opinion

ID: 9834242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:26:26.481028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.204902
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Upon further consideration of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the statement in our former opinion “that plaintiff in error purchased and paid for the land without any notice actual ór constructive of the Guy contract, or of any claim to the land adverse to the title of his grantor,” is not sustained by the evidence. Wilson’s testimony and statements made by him in letters to Robertson show that he knew of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, which, if pursued, would have given him knowledge of the existence .of the Guy contract and of Robertson’s purchase from Guy. But this finding becomes immaterial, because the undisputed evidence shows that Guy’s contract had become forfeited by its express terms prior to Wilson’s purchase of the land, and at the time he made such purchase Robertson had no right under said contract which he could enforce against the Winnie Loan & Improvement Company.
Since any inquiry which Wilson might have made would have failed to show that Robertson had any title or any enforceable right to obtain a title to the land, his title is not dependent upon the question of notice.
Upon the other questions raised in the case we adhere to the conclusions stated in our former opinion.
It follows that the motion for rehearing should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
Overruled.