Court Opinion

ID: 9832318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:48:33.794057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.492311
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant for a Rehearing.
In the opinion disposing of the appeal, referring to a copy of the lease executed by appellee E. L. Pinkston alone and placed in the appellee bank, it was said that “later, to supply omissions in said instrument, same was withdrawn by said Pinkston from said bank and another instrument in writing was executed by said Pinkston, joined by his wife.” It is asserted in the motion that the quotation above from said opinion “is (quoting) a misstatement of the fact and is unsupported by the record in that it was agreed-, as shown by the undisputed evidence in the case, that this lease was to stay in the bank until a copy of it signed by both Pinkston and his wife was placed in the bank.' According to the allegation in plaintiff’s petition, and the undisputed proof in the case, Pinkston secured a delivery of this lease to him without the consent of Patten and without any right on his part to have possession thereof. This error in the statement of fact in the ' opinion is seized upon later in the opinion as an excuse for a conclusion of law and is, therefore, a material error on the part of this court and contrary to the undisputed facts in the case, there - being no possible grounds for the statement that it was ‘withdrawn to supply an error.’ ” Whether the .instrument referred to was withdrawn from the bank by Pinkston to- supply omissions therein by means of another instrument we think was unimportant, but we do not agree that the statement in the opinion was not warranted by evidence the court heard.
Appellant testified:
“Q. Please tell us whether or not you regarded yourself bound to pay for and accept that first lease? A. I considered myself bound from the first and I considered Mr. Pinkston bound.
“Q. All right, then, what right did you have to exact or require a new lease the next day on a different form? If you were bound on that one, why did you not go on through with your deal on it and not require a new one? The new one was better for you than the old one, wasn’t it? A. Because my lawyer went to the bank and took a look at that aftef it had been put in there, * * * and he wanted it on a new form.”
Appellee E. L. Pinkston testified: “They (meaning appellant and one of his attorneys) objected to the form of the first one ⅜ * * and I told them to write it out for me and they wrote it out.”
The motion is overruled.