Majority
Headnote
Contract—Breach of—Refusal to perform—Demand unnecessary.Very likely the defendant is right in his construction of the terms of the contract, and that the notices were required in conformity with his views of its requirements.
We think, however, there was sufficient evidence upon which to base the finding of the trial judge that the defendant ceased and refused to manufacture the machines under the contract, and so notified the plaintiff or his agent. The refusal was absolute and total, and it is not pretended that defendant ever withdrew. It was ample excuse and justification to the plaintiff for his omission to make any further demands or to serve any other notices than the last one, which it is admitted or proved that he did serve. Shaw v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 69 N. Y., 286 .
There are no merits in the appeal and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.