Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Citation
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Parent Document
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1967-02-03
Other Sections in This Document (40)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
Full Text
1,222 charsIn our view, however; considering the contract and the acts of Collings relied on by Scheen, the doctrine cannot be applied here. There is nothing in the contract precluding an action for the recovery of unpaid installments as such. And the action brought by Collings in the magistrate’s court “specifically reiterate (d) and reaffirm(ed) and adopt(ed) each and every provision” of the contract and sought judgment “without waiving any of their (Col-lings’) rights or prerogatives.” The lease and rental provisions of the contract, which we have quoted above and which are relied upon by Scheen, depended upon cancellation by Collings of the contract and its sale and purchase provisions. The notice given by Collings of Scheen’s default contains no hint or suggestion of an election by Collings to cancel. Nor do we find anything in the action brought by Collings in the magistrate’s court which would be construed as a declaration, expressed or implied, of any intent or purpose on Collings’ part to cancel. We find no cancellation of the contract by Col-lings. We have to conclude, therefore, that the contrary contention and argument is untenable as a basis upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained.