On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon the authority of Lozano v. Meyers (Tex. Com. App. 1929) 18 S.W.(2d) 588, 590, appellant urges that our original judgment .was erroneous, in that it did not accord him a personal judgment against the appellees *625for tlie amount of the $900 note he declared on.
We do not think so, concluding, upon a comparison, that the facts there obtaining do not present the legal equivalent of those here, if for no other reason, because, when that note had been sold and indorsed to Thompson, in the language of the court, “At that time the Mulhausens and Meyers had not breached their agreement to construct the building”; whereas, in this instance the contractor Ratcliff, on the very date this note so plainly stipulated its sole consideration to be his building the house, had repudiated all obligation thereunder in i'eturn for the $250 then paid him by Reid, who did thereupon build it.
This, we think, distinguishes the two eases, since here, as the former opinion recites: “All three instruments in like recitations expressly reflect that the sole consideration to the makers therefor was the contemporaneous undertaking of Ratcliff as the contractor furnishing all labor and material to thereafter build the house for them on such homestead.”
The motion for rehearing has been overruled.
Overruled.