Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.

The instrument in question was, in effect, a contract of sale, and not a lease or bailment. (Heryford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 235 ; Silver Bow M. & M. Co. v. Lowry, 6 Mont. 288 ; In re Seymour, 83 Mich. 496 ; Miller v. Steen, 30 Cal. 403 ; Bailey v. Hervey, 135 Mass. 172 ; De Saint Ger-main v. Wind, 3 Wash. T. 189; McGinnis v. Savage, 29 W. Va. 362 ; Harkness v. Russell, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 51; Hart v. Barney, 7 Fed. Rep. 553; Farquhar v. McAlevy, 142 Pa. St. 233; Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741 ; Baldwin v. Van Wagener, 33 W. Va. 293 ; Gorham v. Holden, 79 Me. 317 ; Hervey v. R. I. Locomotive Worhs, 93 U. S. 664 ; Lucas v. Campbell, 88 Ill. 447 .) By electing to sue for the purchase price, and thus treating the transaction as a sale, plaintiff has waived the condition of payment. {Bailey v. Hervey, 135 Mass. 172 ; Butler v. Hildreth, 17 *38 Mass. 605; Terry v. Hunger, 121 N. Y. 161 ; 18 Am. St. Rep. 803 ; Boots v. Ferguson, 26 Hun, 129 ; Mild v. Burton, 49 Mich. 43 ; Stewart v. Huntington, 124 1ST. Y. 127; Pomeroy’s Remedies, 2d ed., secs. 565-569; 1 Wait’s Actions and Defenses—Election of Remedies, p. 504; Bach v. Tuck, 126 N. Y. 53 ; Fleury. v. Tufts, 25 Ill. App. 101 ; Aultman & Co. v.…