Court Opinion

ID: 9631865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:53:34.342563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:03.013305
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice (dissenting). In my opinion the contract under which defendant, Miller, claims had become lapsed and abandoned following continuous defaults by him thereunder and was so treated by all parties, Miller, himself, acquiescing in the view that it was dead. It had remained in that state for several years before the dealing out of which present controversy arises took place. To say the least, this is the way the trial court viewed the matter, and having found accordingly, I see no way in which we can with propriety overturn those findings, being supported by substantial evidence. I am familiar with the rule that forfeitures are not favored and' that slight circumstances will ordinarily be seized upon to avoid them. But when the two parties to a contract either expressly or by strong implications arising on conduct, agree that a contract no longer exists and has lapsed and terminated, the rules mentioned cease to operate and no longer control. The trial court might have found as the majority do and have directed entry of the judgment they order but it declined to do so, viewing the facts differently. In my opinion we are bound by the findings. Accordingly, I dissent.