Court Opinion

ID: 9828853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:47:49.104179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.795228
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have reached the conclusion, upon further consideration on rehearing, that there is nothing in the record to warrant the assumption that appellee’s president, F. E. Thomson, was clothed with authority to bind appellee to a contract different from that actually entered into by the parties, or to waive compliance, on the part of appellant, with the provisions of the contract. There were no allegations showing Thomson had such authority. On the contrary, the existence of such authority was negatived by the provision in the contract that all questions concerning the title, at least, should be referred to Victor Keller, appellee’s attorney. Accordingly, we conclude that the allegations that the conduct of Thomson concerning matters of title was such as to amount to a waiver on the part of the corporation, were not sufficient as a basis of waiver and estoppel. And the fact that a gauger employed by appellee gauged the flow of the Pollard well could not operate as a waiver upon the.part of appellee for any purpose, in the absence of a showing of an express intent to waive a specific right. We conclude that appellant did not allege such facts as amounted to a waiver of its right to repudiate the contract when confronted with knowledge of appellant’s fraudulent representations concerning the title.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing will be granted, and the judgment affirmed.