Assumpsit, for the breach of a contract for building a house, in that the chimney-flues were made smaller than the stipulated size. Verdict for the plaintiff. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff occupied the house and knew of the breach of the contract for some two years or more before the date of his writ, without expressing to the defendants any objection to the size of the flues.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1892-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1985
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
The question of waiver was properly submitted to the jury on the evidence as a matter of fact; for tlieir determination. “ In a general way, waiver maybe said to occur whenever •one, in possession of a right conferred" either by law or by contract, and knowing the attendant facts, does or forbears to do something inconsistent with the existence of the right, or of his intention to rely upon it; in which case he is said tu have waived it, and he is estopped from claiming by reason of it afterwards.” Bish. C,on.,
s.
656. But in such a case the question of waiver is one of fact for thl jury.
Fox
v. Harding, 7 Cush. 516, 520;
Union Bank of Georgetown
v.
Magruder,
7 Pet. 287.
