Lynch Davidson & Co. v. Hudson

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant’s contention is that the trial court erred when he held it did not have a right as against appellee, at the time it assumed to exercise such a right, to treat the contract between Charles M. Hudson and Lucas and Mayhew as forfeited. The contention is on the theory (1) that appellee had no interest in the property in question; (2) that, if appellee did have an interest in it, appellant, contrary to the conclusion reached by the court, did not have to notify her of its intention to do so before treating the contract as forfeited; and (3) that, if…