Court Opinion

ID: 9829135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:01:17.607092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:38.647842
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion language was used indicating a holding that the lessee, H. O. Prideaux, entered into a binding contract to drill a well, and also assumed payment of the bond which Owings gave to insure the performance of such work. The use of such language was through inadvertence. The lease executed to H. O. Prideaux does not show any contract on his part either to drill a well or to assume payment of the bond, for $5,000 theretofore executed by Owings. So far as the terms of the lease were concerned, the payment of rentals and the drilling of a well were both optional on the part of H. O. Prideaux. However, it is apparent, from a reading of both the contract and the lease, that the lease was taken in part at least for the benefit of Owings, if not entirely for his benefit, with H. O. Prideaux holding legal title thereto. At all events, so far as the liability of Owings and the sureties on the bond in suit is concerned, it makes no difference whether or not Owings had any interest in the lease, since the two instruments must necessarily be read in connection with each other.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.