This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If A enters into a contract with B wmich is valid when made, the fact that X by proceedings in injunction prevents A from performing such contract does not discharge A from liability to B for breach.1 Thus a contract to deliver water through an irrigation ditch1 or to construct a sewer within a 'given time3 are none of them discharged by an injunction obtained by a third person against the promisor and restraining him from doing the acts which he has promised to do. This principle must be distinguished from the principle that if a right to act within a specified time is given by the law, the time during which such party was enjoined from acting must, at least as against the party on whose application the injunction issued be omitted from computation in determining whether the time within which the right can be exercised has elapsed. Thus time during which one was enjoined from issuing execution must be deducted from the time between the rendition of judgment and the issuing of execution.4 So the time during which one was restrained cannot be counted in determining whether the time within which an appeal may be perfected has elapsed.5
11 Hughson v. Steamboat Co., 181 Mass. 325; 58 L. R. A. 432; 64 X. E. 74.
12 Pennsylvania Co. v. Contribu-tionship, 201 Pa. St. 497; 57 L. P. A. 510; 51 Atl. 351.
13 Kares v. Covell, 180 Mass. 206; 91 Am. St. Rep. 271; 62 N. E. 244. (The vendee is not obliged to accept the realty at the contract price. He may either rescind the sale for the breach or recoup damages.)
14 Dale v. Commonwealth. 101 Ky. 612; 38 L. R. A. 80S; 42 S. W. 93.
15 Fresno Milling Co. v. Irrigation Co., 126 Cal. 640; 59 Pac. 140.
16 School District v. Howard, (Neb.) ; 98 N. W. 666.
1 Sample v. Irrigation Co., 129 Cal. 222; 61 Pac. 1085; Whittemore v. Sills, 76 Mo. App. 248. "No case has been cited in which it has been held that interference by a writ sued out by a private litigant will excuse performance of a contract although it may deprive the contract of the means of performance. It is not prevention by operation of law. It is the act of an individual, and not of the government." Klauber v. Street-Car Co.,