¶1Stanley Boykin and George F. Seide-man, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
¶2William L Kerr, of Pecos, Tex., and John Sayles, of Abilene, Tex., for appel-lees.
¶3Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
¶5Like Miss Meacham’s case, Meacham v. Halley, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 967, this day decided, this was a suit for cancellation, and in the alternative for damages, based on the claim that plaintiff had been defrauded into releasing to Halley a ten acre lease.
¶6The facts in this case, with a few unimportant differences,1 are the same as those in Miss Meacham’s case.
¶7*1011The controlling legal principles are the same; the decree below was the same.
¶8For the reasons, therefore, set out fully in the Meacham case, the decree appealed from in this case will De affirmed.
¶11(dissenting).
¶12The facts of this case being substantially the same as those in the case of Meach-am v. Halley et al., 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 967, the dissent filed in that case expresses my views in this one.
¶13I respectfully dissent.
¶14On Petition for Rehearing.
¶16As neither of the judges who concurred in the judgment of the court in the above numbered and entitled cause is of opinion that the petition for rehearing should be granted, it is ordered that the said petition be and the same hereby is denied.