Court Opinion

ID: 9834212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:23:58.296732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.809002
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In passing upon the right of the Rice common school district No. 2 to recover a judgment against the Fidelity & Deposit Company, we said:
“The evidence fails to show any conspiracy, as alleged by appellee, and we are unable to see upon what theory is predicated the right of judgment against surety company, and it is reversed and rendered as to it.”
Appellee recovered no judgment against the bonding company, but the Rice common school district No. 2 did recover a judgment for the amount, and judgment was rendered against it. So we were in error in predicating our judgment on the ground we did.
[4] While a wrong reason was given, the correct result, under the facts, is the same. When Johnson & Meier abandoned the construction of the building, the bonding company agreed with the trustees of the Rice district No. 2 to take charge and complete it. Some time after it was further agreed between them that the Rice school district should take charge of said building and complete it, that the bonding company should be released from said bond, and the bond was canceled and surrendered by the trustees. This agreement constituted a valuable consideration for the release of the bonding company from any obligation on the bond. Therefore there was no obligation upon which appellant was authorized to recover from the bonding company.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.