Powell

In legal posture these two cases are substantially the same and arise upon the identical contract considered in Hammon Con. G. Fields v. Powell (C.C.A.) 32 F.(2d) 855 , qualifying opinion on petition for rehearing (C.C.A.) 33 F.(2d) 898 . In that case was involved only the minimum annual payment due December 1, 1927, and we held that, inasmuch as appellant had not attempted to withdraw from or terminate the contract until thirty days thereafter, it could not escape the obligation which had thus fully matured.

The suits were brought to recover minimum payments which, if the contract remained in force after December 31, 1927, matured December 1, 1928. The circumstances and conditions rendering two actions necessary, and certain incidental issues, need not here be explained; nor is it important that upon the overruling of appellant’s demurrers to the complaints it raised certain issues of fact, and that, touching such issues, evidence was introduced. As in the former case, the controlling question is of the meaning and effect of the contract therein considered. That,' in writing on December 30, 1927, appellant gave notice of its surrender of the contract as of December 31, 1927…