Limitation on instalment bonds starts from first default where acceleration is triggered and waiver is not proved.

Where an instalment bond allows the creditor to recover the entire debt on default of any instalment, limitation runs from the first default unless waiver of the acceleration clause is clearly established. The court held that later alleged interest payments were not proved, and there was no definite act or forbearance showing waiver. Mere abstinence from suing was insufficient to amount to waiver, and a failed plea of payment could not be substituted by a plea of waiver. Limitation therefore began on the first default, and the suit was barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an instalment bond containing a clause enabling the creditor to recover the whole amount on default of any instalment, limitation runs from the date of the first default in the absence of waiver.

Analysis: The bond gave the creditor an option to treat the whole debt as due on default of any instalment. The plaintiff treated the first default as the cause of action and attempted to save limitation by alleging later payments of interest. Those payments were not proved. On the facts, there was no definite act or forbearance showing waiver of the acceleration clause. Mere abstinence from suing was insufficient to constitute waiver, and the failed plea of payment could not be replaced by a plea of waiver.

Conclusion: Limitation began to run from the first default, and the suit was barred by limitation.

---