A covenant not to sue for five years, is no bar to the action, but the defendant must rely upon the covenant for his remedy.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.
B. S. Brooks, for Appellant.
The suit was prematurely brought, because no action could be maintained until the expiration of the covenant. Robinson v, Godfrey, 2 Michigan R., 408. McCrackan v. Hayward, 2 How., 612. Story on Bills, ยงยง 409, 413, 414. 2 Bac. Ab., 614. Fullham v. Valentine, 11 Pick., 160. Bank U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet., 250. Hubbly v. Brown, 16 Johns., 70. Tatlock v. Smith, 19 Eng. C. L. R., 94. Stracy v. Bank of England, Ib., 232. Allys v. Probyn, 2 Crompt. Mees. & Rosc., 408.
E. B. Mastick, for Respondent.
No brief on file.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The covenant relied upon by the defense, is only a covenant not to sue for five years.
In such cases it has been uniformly decided, that the covenant is no bar to the action, but that the defendant must be turned to his remedy *502upon the covenant. See 7 Harris & Johns , 92. 1 Halsted, 429. 8 Pick, 229. 6 Wendell, 471. 2 Blackf., 119.
Judgment affirmed.
5 Cal. 501
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!