Bishop v. Lawrence
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 5 — PETITION OBDINAKY APPEAL PROM CLARK COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. The appellee’s conduct amounted to a waiver of his right to rely upon appellant’s default in the payment of the first installment as a forfeiture of further time in which to pay the debt; and the fact that lie was to continue to receive more than six per cent, interest, was sufficient consideration for the waiver.
Read the full summary
Case 5 — PETITION OBDINAKY APPEAL PROM CLARK COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. The appellee’s conduct amounted to a waiver of his right to rely upon appellant’s default in the payment of the first installment as a forfeiture of further time in which to pay the debt; and the fact that lie was to continue to receive more than six per cent, interest, was sufficient consideration for the waiver. (2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, "Waiver, 648; Bellamy v. Bagsdale. 14 B. Mon., 293; Hilliard on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 171.) the judgment of the lower court, which is to be considered as the verdict of a jury, is not…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion op the court.
The appellant, on the 28th day of March, 1883, executed and delivered to the appellee his written obliga*26tion, which read as follows: “I this day borrowed two hundred dollars of Wm. S. Lawrence, and I agree to pay him the twelfth part of the amount at the expiration of every month, and the interest at eight per cent.; and this note is to be put in the Clark County National Bank. I agree to have the money in the bank at the end of every month, so that this note can be credited •with the amount that I have agreed to pay to the said Wm. S. Lawrence;…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lytle v. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1905