Court Opinion

ID: 9834166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:21:33.984228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.374063
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The witnesses who testified in person in the lower court by their testimony sustain the judgment of this court rather than that of the lower court; in fact, their uncontra-dicted testimony shows that Mrs. Walker contracted to sell the land to appellants. She alone denied the agency of her son and daughter in connection with the contract of sale, and she testified by deposition, and this court is in as strong a position to pass upon the truth of her deposition as is the trial judge. Prom her contradictory statements and admissions we conclude that her testimony should not break down the testimony of the other witnesses. Her statements are utterly irreconcilable, and we have given the appellants the benefit of her evidence in their favor rather than her assertions in her own favor. Her admissions show beyond the peradventure of a doubt that she knew of the transaction and fully sanctioned it, and only breached it when she imagined that there would be more money in leasing it to seekers after oil. This court did not “go into the realms of speculation, and find the existence of a fact upon which there was not one word of testimony introduced into the record,” in holding that the “possible discovery of oil on the land changed the aspect of affairs and the contract of sale was breached.” Mrs. Walker admitted that she had declared the “deal was off” and that she had leased the land to an oil company. Such companies are usually on the trail of oil.
The question of the statute of frauds was waived by appellees in their answer.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.