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.
A covenant is said to be independent if the performance of such covenant by the party who is bound thereby is not related in any way to the duty of the adversary party to perform the covenants which, by the terms of the contract, are to be performed on his part.1 While, in the earlier cases, there was a strong presumption their relation to one another seems to be determined by their relation when the contract is made and not to be affected by the stage of performance which has been reached when the question of the relation of such covenants arises;3 and, accordingly, the fact that in the actual course of performance each party becomes bound to perform before either seeks to enforce performance of such covenant, does not prevent the covenant from being treated as independent.4
11 Seymour v. Gartside, 2 Dowl. & R. 55.
12 Kelley v. Brennan, 18 R. I. 41, 25 Atl. 346; Parkinson v. Murphy, - R. I. -, 107 Atl. 235.
13 Seymour v. Gartside, 2 Dowl. & R. 55.
14 See Sec. 2881 et seq.
15 Gough v. Farr, 2 Car. & P. 631.
16 Longfellow v. Huffman, 49 Or. 486, 90 Pac 907.
17 Longfellow v. Huffman, 49 Or. 486, 90 Pac 907.
1 England. Ware v. Chappell, Style
186; Boone v. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 273, note; Bettini v. Gye, 1 Q. B. D. 183; Campbell v. Jones, 6 T. R. 570.
United States. Emigrant Company v. Adams County, 100 U. S. 61, 25 L. ed. 563; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hensey, 205 U. S. 298, 51 L. ed. 811 [affirming, Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hensey, 27 D. C. App. 210]; Kauff-man v. Raeder, 108 Fed. 171, 54 L. R. A. 247. 47 C. C. A. 278.
California. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Perrin, 170 Cal. 411, 149 Pac. 805.