Holman v. Joslin

Citations

• 110 Kan. 674
• 204 P. 697
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 122

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Specific Performance — Sale of Land — Time Essence of Contract — Acceptance of Payments After Due — Forfeiture Inequitable. Although the acceptance of a single installment on the purchase price after due does not necessarily effect a waiver by the vendor of the provision of a contract for the sale of land making time essential, yet if enough instances of the kind occur to establish a course of dealing inconsistent with insistence on a strict adherence to the letter of the agreement in that regard, he cannot thereafter declare a forfeiture for a failure to make a payment promptly without first giving notice of an intention to insist thereon; and in a particular case two such instances may be sufficient for the purpose where but two deferred payments have become due and where a forfeiture would be inequitable.</p> <p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Contract — Sale of Land — Default in Payments — Petition for Specific Performance by Vendee Not Demurrable. Where the vendor declares a land contract (in which time is made essential) forfeited for failure to meet a deferred payment promptly, a petition in an action by the purchaser for specific performance brought eighteen months later is not demurrable because not filed sooner, where it contains allegations inconsistent with the theory that the delay indicated acquiescence or abandonment. And it is held that allegations of that character were made in the petition in this case.</p>