Court Opinion

ID: 9766131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:33:31.689499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:19.569057
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
We have carefully considered appellant’s motion for rehearing, on all of its points; and are still of the opinion that the trial court’s' Findings of Fact are amply supported by the evidence adduced. Appellant has very forcefully argued that following the “unless” clause in Paragraph 5 of the lease in question, it is provided that “the payment or tender of rental under this paragraph * * * may be made by check or draft of the Lessee mailed or delivered to Lessor or to said bank on or before the date of payment.” Appellee at the trial a full month after the date when the rental check or draft should have been mailed or delivered in order to con stitute payment or tender of the rental, testified that he had not received delay rentals in 1957 and that no drilling operations had been commenced. When asked if he knew pf his own knowledge whether or not Lion Oil Company tendered or deposited in the East Texas National Bank rental for the lease, he answered in the affirmative, and added that he had never received any deposit slips. The undisputed testimony of the assistant cashier of said bank was quite definite. She had examined the records of the bank for a period ex-, tending beyond the date of payment or date of mailing and found no item of' delay rental. She testified fully a month after the date of payment and was subjected to, cross-examination.
There is no assignment by appellant that the court’s Finding of Fact No. 5 to the effect that the lease in question had terminated by operation of law, was released and no longer in force or effect, is unsupported by the evidence or is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Notwithstanding such fact, we have considered such Finding in the light of the evidence. We think that under the testimony of appellee and that of the assistant cashier, coupled with the presumption of *768the failure to mail arising from nondelivery, a fact .issue was raised for the court’s decision and that such decision finds support in the evidence. Border State Life Ins. Co. v. Noble, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 119, dism., judgm. correct.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.