Axford v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Axford v. Thomas

28 A. 443, 160 Pa. 8, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 752

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

DocketAppeal, No. 178

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 28 A. 443 (Axford v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Axford v. Thomas, 28 A. 443, 160 Pa. 8, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 752 (Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

The learned court below left it to the jury to say whether there had been any waiver of the forfeiture contained in the agreement, and the jury found by their verdict that there was not. The clause of forfeiture was written in the plainest words. [13]*13A failure to pay the installments for a definite time of three months avoided the agreement by its express terms. It was the contract and therefore the law of the parties. Time was made of the essence of the contract and we cannot disregard that provision without making a new contract for the parties. The reasons given by the court below in the opinion on the motion for a new trial are sufficient to sustain the action of the court. Substantially for those reasons we think the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Curiam,

The learned court below left it to the jury to say whether there had been any waiver of the forfeiture contained in the agreement, and the jury found by their verdict that there was not. The clause of forfeiture was written in the plainest words. [13]*13A failure to pay the installments for a definite time of three months avoided the agreement by its express terms. It was the contract and therefore the law of the parties. Time was made of the essence of the contract and we cannot disregard that provision without making a new contract for the parties. The reasons given by the court below in the opinion on the motion for a new trial are sufficient to sustain the action of the court. Substantially for those reasons we think the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A. 443, 160 Pa. 8, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/axford-v-thomas-pa-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack