Foundry Manufacturing Co. v. Farr

When this case was here before — Found ry Mfg. Co. v. Farr, 96 Vt. 382, 119 Atl. 885 — we left undecided the question whether the agreement for an extension of the time of payment merely postponed the necessity of demand and notice, or finally dispensed with it. This question is now presented, and it is argued in support of the exception to the order of the court overruling the defendant’s motion for a verdict that the legal effect of the agreement was not to dispense with the necessity of demand and notice, but merely to postpone the same until the expiration of the extension. As indi eated…