Court Opinion

ID: 9833866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:06:26.725345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.130454
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On this rehearing, my brethren sustain appellant’s proposition that the trial court erred in receiving the contents of the “memorandum,” because it was not shown that it was written by an agent with authority to fix appellee’s wages. For the reasons stated in the original opinion I dissent from this conclusion. Appellee alleged, as a ground of recovery, a specific contract. He tried to prove this contract by circumstances. 1 think the fact that the section foreman, wrote to appellant’s general office and received in .reply the “memorandum,” as well as the other facts set forth in the original opinion, were admissible as circumstances bearing on the issue made by appellee’s pleading.
As to whether these circumstances were sufficient to sustain a finding of a contract in appellee’s favor, presents a different question, which, in view of the holding of my brethren on the admissibility of the contents *907of the memorandum, it is not necessary to discuss. Without the memorandum, clearly, appellee has not offered a chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain a finding in his favor.
It is the order of this court that appellant’s motion for rehearing be granted, and that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.