Court Opinion

ID: 9827313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:24:15.479509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.057159
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is true, as stated in this motion, tuat we were mistaken in stating in our former opinion that ,the amended petition upon which the case went to trial was the same as the one considered by this court on the former appeal, except that it omitted the alternative prayer for an apportionment of the water. A more careful comparison of the two petitions shows that the latter omitted the specific facts relied on in the former for an apportionment; and we now hold that the latter petition eliminated and did not present the question of apportionment. However, that ruling does not change the result, because, after reconsideration, we adhere to our last ruling, holding that the contract was ambiguous, and that, aside from the question of. apportionment, appellant’s petition stated a cause of action which he was entitled to have tried.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.