Hatfield v. Clovis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Hatfield v. Clovis, 219 Pa. 168 (Pa. 1907)
68 A. 43; 1907 Pa. LEXIS 624
Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart, Taylor
Hatfield v. Clovis
Opinion of the Court
The learned judge below found as a fact that the option was accepted on July 8, by the proper parties, and that the renewed acceptance and tender of money on July 10 were for greater caution only.
Either notice of acceptance was sufficient. It was not required to be in writing and the manifest meaning and understanding of the parties in the words “ the party of the second part shall have until the 10th day of July to accept” were that they should have that day. The findings of the judge were upon sufficient evidence and his conclusions therefrom were correct.
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contract — Mines and mining — Coal option — Time. Where a coal option provides that “the party of the second part shall have until the tenth day of July, 1905, to accept the coal herein described,” and that on failure to give notice of acceptance “by the said date” the contract shall be void, the party of the second part has until the tenth day of July in which to accept the option.