In response to the contention of appellant on rehearing, we will say that we do not agree that the acceptance by Tillman was conditional. In fact, it was unconditional, and when so accepted its terms clearly indicated that thereby the owner was to be credited with its amount. The fact that Breeding and the owner made a separate agreement as to when it would be paid to Breeding was a transaction between them alone, and did not affect the agreement between the contractor and owner as recited in the instrument, bearing an unconditional acceptance of the owner.
The other matters are sufficiently treated in the majority opinion.
The application for rehearing is overruled. *Page 526
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, THOMAS, BOULDIN, and BROWN, JJ., concur.
SAYRE, J., adheres to the views expressed in his opinion.