Opinion
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.
COUNSEL:
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, §§ 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, Ibid. 232. Allys v. Probyn, 2 Crompt., Mees. & Rosc. 408.
B. S. Brooks, for Appellant.
E. B. Mastick, for Respondent.
No brief on file.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The covenant relied upon by the defence 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 upon his covenant. See 7 Harris & Johns. 92; 1 Halsted, 429; 8 Pick. 229; 6 Wendell, 471; 2 Blackf. 119.
Judgment affirmed.