Court Opinion

ID: 9834081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:16:48.493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.463086
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In reply to appellees’ motion for rehearing, our attention is called to a statement made in the opinion that the suit is nothing more than a suit on a promissory note, and further that we fail to distinguish it from the decision of this court in Bell v. First National Bank of Roekport. Both statements are true in that the notes are similar, and both are promissory notes, and both contain similar clauses of conditions.
The issue as to whether Heldenfels Bros, have established and maintained a permanent shipyard and the performance of such conditions as are expressed therein have been raised as an issue of fact. We have not intended to prejudge any issues that will probably arise hereafter on the trial of this case by any observations made in respect thereto. The motion for a rehearing is overruled.