Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama (54)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1895 edition. Excerpt: ...what is plain.--Sroll o. Hartley, 25 N. E. Rep. 826; Cox 1'. Peterson, 30 Ala. 608;.11. 61' E. R. 1?. ('0.-v. '0), 78 Ala.396; Wilkinson 1). Williamson, 76 Ala. 163;E. T., Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. 1). Johnston, 75 Ala. 596; Robinson v. Mollctl, L. R. 7 H. L. 802; Anson on C0ntr., 343. Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Hull Coal & Coke Co. Did the party who was entitled to treat the contract as broken, so treat it, or did he continue to treat it as operative, and insist upon its further performance? If he acted upon the breach, if there was one, then his only duty would be to show the breach, and his right to damages would be the legal consequence. But, on the other hand, if he still insisted upon the performance of the contract by the party alleged to have broken it, be waived the breach, and can not found a right of recovery thereon. If a promisee does not accept the renunciation, and continues to insist on the performance of the promise, the contract remains in existence for the benefit and at the risk of both parties, and if anything occurs to discharge it from the other causes, the promisor may take advantage of such discharge.--Arery-r. Bowden, 5 E. & B. 7l4; Lynch 1). Paris, L. &G. E. Co, 15 S. W. Rep. 208; Bishop on Contr., 829; Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. 562; Friess 1). Rider, 24 N. Y. 367; Bore! v. Simpson, 90 Ala. 375, 7 So. Rep. 814; 2 Benj. on Sales, 9; 860. ' R. C. BRICKELL, J. B. Moose and LAWRENCE Coorsn, contra.--No matter what view may be entertained of the first contract considered alone, there can be no doubt about the meaning of the second. The stipulations therein are absolute as to each party. The first contract is interpreted by the second, and turned into an engagement by one to deliver and by...