Unless a waiver for an indefinite time for bringing an action to trial is against public policy, his position is not well taken, but in this respect the statute (ยง 583 Code Civ. Proc.) is a declaration of public policy unless it be repugnant to a constitutional provision. ( Carr v. Kingsbury, 111 Cal.App. 165 [ 295 P. 586]; Winklemen v. Sides, 31 Cal.App. (2d) 387 [ 88 P.2d 147]; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 [4 P. 919, 10 P. 674]; S.L. Jones Co. v. Davis, 65 Cal.App. 164 [ 223 P. 560].) Our attention has not been called to any constitutional provision that curtails the right of interested litigants by stipulation in writing to postpone the trial of an action.
The benefit of such statute may be waived. ( S.L. Jones Co. v. Davis, 65 Cal.App. 164, 173 [ 223 P. 560].) [2] We think that the waiver having been executed in writing, and respondent having relied and acted thereon for the reasons stated therein, the contention of appellant that there was no consideration for such waiver should not be sustained.