ON REHEARING GRANTED

On November 5, 1946, we reversed the decree appealed from and thereafter granted a rehearing. Upon further consideration of the case we are convinced that we were in error in the first instance. Stovall’s letter of conditional acceptance dated January 10, 1945, limited the one-third item to that “salvaged so far as the corporation is concerned.” Adm'ttedly the corporation, Stovall Properties, Inc., saved nothing out of the litigation. Williams then rests his claim for relief upon his statement that:

*485 “. . . ‘if I sign the praecipe for dismissal will you upon completion of the purchase by Crestyiew. issue to me as my contingent compensation one-third or 5 of the 15 shares coming to you or your nominees under the contract.’ ” Whereupon Stovall replied, “Yes.”

. , The proof of this assertion is affirmed by Williams and .denied by Stovall.' The chancellor weighed the evidence against Williams, who had the burden, and dismissed the bill. In this we see no reáson to put the chancellor in error.

The judgment heretofore entered is vacated and we recede from our former opinion and the decree appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.