Axford v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 12, 1894

Axford v. Thomas, 160 Pa. 8 (Pa. 1894)

28 A. 443; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 752

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Pee, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

The learned court below left it to the jury to say whether there had been any waiver of the forfeiture contained in the agreement, and the jury found by their verdict that there was not. The clause of forfeiture was written in the plainest words. *13A failure to pay the installments for a definite time of three months avoided the agreement by its express terms. It was the contract and therefore the law of the parties. Time was made of the essence of the contract and we cannot disregard that provision without making a new contract for the parties. The reasons given by the court below in the opinion on the motion for a new trial are sufficient to sustain the action of the court. Substantially for those reasons we think the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Sale — Installments of purchase money — Contract—Forfeiture. Three persons entered into a joint agreement to purchase a quarry. One of them was to advance the purchase money, the other two to repay him by monthly installments, in the meantime having the use of the land for quarrying. The agreement further provided: “In case the party of the second part, by neglect or refusal to pay the aforesaid monthly installments, becomes more than three months in arrears, then this agreement to become null and void, and the party of the second part to forfeit to the party of the first part all the amounts paid by them and relinquish all claims against the party of the first part.” Held, that time was of the essence of the contract, and that a failure to pay any one of the monthly installments worked a forfeiture not only of the agreement but of the previous payment.