Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ætna Life Insurance v. Phifer

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 2, 1923Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION.

McCulloch, C. J.

I can only discover in this con-

tract one to pay money in installments, and a refusal to pay each installment created a separate cause of action, but not a right of action for future installments. The breach of the contract was in refusing to pay, and the fact that there was a total denial of liability did not accelerate the right of action for future installments. The rule on the subject of remedies on contracts to pay money in installments is stated as follows:

“At common law a.contract to pay a sum certain in installments at different times was considered…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Van Winkle v. SatterfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
  2. Puckett v. National Annuity Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  3. Ryall v. PrinceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
  4. Higgins v. San Diego Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Peurrung v. Carter-Crume Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1899

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API