Robb v. Parten

Upon reargument we are of the opinion that the general rule stated in the opinion does not control, but that this case is ruled by an exception to the rule in that the contract involved was implied to be made on the assumed continued existence of the dwelling house. Anderson v. May, 50 Minn. 280, 52 N.W. 530,17 L.R.A. 555, 36 A.S.R. 642; Angus v. Scully,176 Mass. 357, 57 N.E. 674, 49 L.R.A. 562, 79 A.S.R. 318; 3 Williston, Contracts, §§ 1975, 1935, 1948, 1964 and 1965; 5 Page, Contracts, §§ 2716-2717, 2719-2720; Carroll v. Bowersock,100 Kan. 270, 164 P. 143, L.R.A. 1917D, 1006; 6 R.C.L.…