Court Opinion

ID: 9830919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:37:46.814476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:32.654129
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we failed to expressly pass on appellants’ fourth and fifth, assignments of error. We now do so. They are overruled.
[2] Appellants insist that the evidence in this case shows that the notes were not due when suit was brought, because an extension thereof had been agreed to between the parties. But the evidence does not even tend to support such a conclusion. Appellee’s agent agreed to extend the note on condition that appellants would furnish satisfactory collateral security. Appellants agreed *185to the condition, but never complied with it. During a period of several months said agent was busy trying to induce appellants to furnish such collateral, stating all the time that appellee would extend the note, if satisfactory security was given; but appellants failed to provide security acceptable to appel-lee’s agent. Appellee’s agent never agreed to extend the notes without such new security, and therefore the minds of the parties never met upon any agreement to extend.
[3] If there was error in admitting in evidence the letters complained of by appellants, it was harmless error. There being no agreement to extend the time of payment of the notes, any discussion of the terms of a contemplated extension is immaterial. The trial court could not have reached a different conclusion in the case if the letters objected to had been excluded.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.