REHEARING OPINION.
Hart, C. J.Counsel for appellees in their motion for rehearing contend that the court erred in finding that the revenues of the 'county derived from all sources for the year 1927 were insufficient to pay the legal and indispensable running expenses of the county and the installment of $95,000 due in that year for the construction of the courthouse; and in this contention we are of the opinion that counsel for appellees are correct. While counsel for the parties referred to the record in both cases in their original brief, we \yere led to investigate the case last tried for a more complete statement of the facts. Upon reexamination of the record in ease No. 202, we find that it shows that on the 15th day of February, 1926, which was an adjourned day of the levying court for 1925, the county judge and the members of the quorum court made an investigation of the financial affairs of the county, and found that $50,000 of the initial payment of $95,000 was left over after paying the budget of the county for 1925; that $45,000' would be left after paying the running expenses for 1926 for each succeeding year for fifteen years. Thus it will be seen that it was ascertained that the county had $95,000 on hand at the time the contract for the construction of the courthouse was executed on May 25, 1927, which was available to make the first payment, and for this reason the warrants for the payment of the initial payment of $95,000 were made payable on demand.
It follows that we erred in our finding of facts as indicated in our original opinion, and, on account of that error, the petition of appellees will be granted. ¥e adhere to our conclusions of law as stated in our original opinion, and, under our finding of facts herein, as applied to our conclusions of law, the opinion of the chancellor in the consolidated cases was .correct, and the decree will therefore be affirmed. It is so ordered.