Court Opinion

ID: 9600316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:25:56.236524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:51.896159
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Mr. Justice Clark:
Petition for rehearing filed on behalf of plaintiffs in *547error is directed to that part of the opinion wherein we held that the timely tender of $2,000.00 covering the rental on 2,000 acres of land in Adams County, specifically described, and the subsequent voluntary withdrawal and division of that money by lessors must be given effect as being in the nature of an offer and acceptance retaining life in the lease to that extent.
The petition has given us cause to pause and devote further study to the point, but after serious consideration we are impelled to the conviction that we must adhere to our opinion as written. While possibly, were this a matter of a contract arising in the first instance strictly upon the theory of offer and acceptance, some essential elements might fairly be said to be lacking, yet where we have under consideration an already existing contract partially performed, and under the facts and circumstances peculiarly applicable to this case, we cannot escape the conclusion that the picture revealed, if not tech-' nically an offer and acceptance, is so closely in the nature thereof that the result is the same.
The depository bank did not modify the land description contained in the transmittal telegram — it only construed an apparent error. The lessors adopted that proper land description. The exact subdivisions and interests covered by the $2,000.00 were never in doubt in their minds. They need not have taken the money if uncertain that it was insufficient to cover all the land held under that particular assignment, but they did take it. They are bound by what they did, as is also Young and his assigns, notwithstanding claimed mistake on his part also.