Court Opinion

ID: 9827692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:46:48.258495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.570435
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
The trial court’s findings of fact did not include any finding of the alleged collateral agreement that the note sued on. in the cross-action should not be -paid unless plaintiff Barrier should become financially able to pay the .same. The only reference to that alleged . agreement is in the court’s conclusions of law, reading as follows: “I further conclude that the collateral agreement, that the note should not be paid unless plaintiff should become financially able to pay the same, is of no legal effect; and deny a recovery on the $8⅛⅛1.00 note solely on failure of consideration.” (Italics ours.) ,
Hence, we believe that the findings of fact and conclusions of law strongly indicate that .the court did not intend to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the alleged collateral agreement referred to in- the conclusions of law; and our discussion of the *626evidence in the original opinion was for the purpose of showing that this court is without jurisdiction to affirm the judgment, at all events, upon the theory that the alleged' collateral agreement had been found by the trial court, or else that it had been conclusively established as a matter of law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.