(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, but I entirely disapprove the basis of the decision.
Unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary, our holding here must be consistent with the previous case involving the same parties, Thickman v. Schunk, Wyo., 391 P.2d 939. In that earlier opinion we stated at 391 P.2d 942:
“The key finding contained in the summary judgment was that the plaintiffs voluntarily elected to resign, were bound by such resignations, and could not invoke the jurisdiction of the court *991to set aside their voluntary actions under the agreement. * * * ”
We thereafter alluded to paragraph six of the partnership agreement, which we said meant that the remaining partner had an option to carry on the business but was not obligated to do so, and voiced our reasons at 391 P.2d 945 why the summary judgment must be reversed:
“ * * * There was no evidence that defendant notified plaintiffs of a desire to exercise the right to carry on the business and since this was not done either prior to appellants’ attempted re-cisions or the filing of the complaint, the relationship was not such that the invoking of the jurisdiction of the court to act was improper.”
Since the court had in evidence at the time-of the trial the letter of defendant Schunk showing his acceptance of the resignations during the time they were effective as options for the remaining partner to purchase,, it follows that the terms of the partnership agreement must prevail.