This is a petition to rehear the case in 116 N. 0., 389, where the contract is set out in full. It was an executed contract reciting that one party “ proposes to sell” and the other “ agrees to buy.” Further, the seller gave a warranty. And as an additional safeguard there was a further clause, in the nature of a defeasance, that the buyer might have the representations examined into. As pointed ont by MeeRimoN, 0. J., when this case was here the first time,'(108 N. C., 554,) this last was a privilege to the buyer, which he could exercise or not as he chose. He might waive it and rely solely upon the warranty given by the seller. The buyer’s waiver of such privilege certainly could not be deemed a waiver of the warranty on the part of the seller, but on the contrary showed an intention more distinctly to rely upon the warranty alone. If this were not so, the contract would be construed as meaning that, if on examination, the representations were found correct, the seller’s warranty was binding, otherwise it would be null and void — a palpable absurdity. Why insert a warranty if there was to be no sale or liability, unless the buyer made the examination and found the representations to be true? It may not be amiss in this case to repeat wrhat was said in Herndon v. Ins. Co., 111 N. C., 384, 389, to-wit, “ Errors are committed by all courts, but they are by no means so numerous and alarm-
*422ing as they must seem to counsel who lose their causes. They should reflect that they have against them the opinion of the opposite counsel and of the five disinterested, lawyer? who have heard the cause debated.”
Petition Dismissed.