acceleration clause in Tennessee

2004Gunther v. White, 489 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn. 1973).

1985Gunther v. White, Tenn., 489 S.W.2d 529 (1973).

1937Justice,Green in White v. Hatcher, 135 Tenn., 609 , at page 616, 188 S. W., 61 . seem to recognize that a note is not matured by operation of an acceleration clause until exercise of his option by the holder.

1937In White v. Hatcher, 135 Tenn., 609 , 188 S. W., 61 , it was held that an acceleration clause in a note did not render it nonnegotiable.

2018Id.

2009In Lively v. Drake, 629 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn.1982) the Supreme Court discussed an acceleration clause in a contract as follows: We are of the opinion that the course of dealing between the parties over a period of almost two years was such that appellants had been led to believe that *278 irregular payments would be accepted without acceleration.

1977He relies on a federal district court decision, Garza v. Chicago Health Clubs, Inc., 347 F.Supp. 955 (N.D.Ill.1972).

1944In a leading California case, dealing with the effect* of an acceleration clause, California Savings & Loan Soc. v. Culver, 127 Cal., 107 , 59 P., 292, 293 , the Court says: “Statutes of limitation are intended to prevent stale claims from springing up after the lapse of long periods of time, to the surprise of parties, or their representatives, when loss of papers, deaths of witnesses, and worn-out recollections make the presentation of the actual facts in the case impossible or extremely difficult, and are not intended as defenses to just demands of comparatively recent origin.

1944In a leading California case, dealing with the effect* of an acceleration clause, California Savings & Loan Soc. v. Culver, 127 Cal., 107 , 59 P., 292, 293 , the Court says: “Statutes of limitation are intended to prevent stale claims from springing up after the lapse of long periods of time, to the surprise of parties, or their representatives, when loss of papers, deaths of witnesses, and worn-out recollections make the presentation of the actual facts in the case impossible or extremely difficult, and are not intended as defenses to just demands of comparatively recent origin.

1940A recent case illustrative of this doctrine of acceleration is Mayor and Aldermen v. Ward, 173 Tenn., 91 , 114 S. W. (2d), 804 .

1940A recent case illustrative of this doctrine of acceleration is Mayor and Aldermen v. Ward, 173 Tenn., 91 , 114 S. W. (2d), 804 .

1940Also, see Sanders v. Blue Ridge Glass Corporation, 161 Tenn., 535 , 33 S. W. (2d), 84, 85 , wherein this Court sustained an award where the proof indicated that an injury “aggravated the already abnormal condition of petitioner’s heart, ’ ’ and death resulted.

1940Also, see Sanders v. Blue Ridge Glass Corporation, 161 Tenn., 535 , 33 S. W. (2d), 84, 85 , wherein this Court sustained an award where the proof indicated that an injury “aggravated the already abnormal condition of petitioner’s heart, ’ ’ and death resulted.

1937“The principal of this bond may be declared or become due and payable on the conditions, in the manner, and with the effect set forth in the said . . . mortgage, if certain defaults specified therein shall occur.” Bank of California v. National City Co., 138 Wash., 517 , 244 P., 690, 693 .

1937“The principal of this bond may be declared or become due and payable on the conditions, in the manner, and with the effect set forth in the said . . . mortgage, if certain defaults specified therein shall occur.” Bank of California v. National City Co., 138 Wash., 517 , 244 P., 690, 693 .

1929In support of their insistence they rely upon Waddle v. Terry, 4 Cold, 51; Meek v. Trotter, 133 Tenn., 145 ; American National Bank v. Chapin, 17 A. L.

1915Roblee v. Union Stockyards National Bank, 69 Neb., 180 , 95 N. W., 61 , is not in point.

1915Roblee v. Union Stockyards National Bank, 69 Neb., 180 , 95 N. W., 61 , is not in point.