To be enforceable either at law or in equity a contract must be definite.1 This requisite is especially insisted upon when specific performance is sought,2 and specific performance may 71 be refused even though damages may be obtained at law.8 A contract which does not fix the time of performance and yet shows that a definite time was intended and not a reasonable time is too indefinite for specific enforcement.4 Thus a contract for the purchase of stock in part on credit, without provisions as to the time when the purchase price is to be paid or the stock transferred, or as to the security to be given for deferred payments,5 or a contract for the sale of realty on credit, which provides for giving a mortgage or mortgages as security, but does not provide for the number of mortgages, the date of payment or the order of payment,6 or a contract which does not show the agreement of the parties as to the assumption of a mortgage,7 are each too indefinite to be enforced specifically. So a contract for the sale of realty which does not describe it so that it can be located definitely,8 such as a contract for " four lots 25 feet by 150 feet deep in either section 8 or 9,"9 or a contract to convey a certain number of acres in any one of certain specified counties,10 or to convey one hundred acres of the west end of a tract, either that then owned by the vendor, or to be afterward acquired by him,11 or a contract to convey lands described in another contract, the terms of which are not shown,12 have each been held to be too indefinite to be enforced specifically.' A contract in itself indefinite may be made definite by the' subsequent conduct of the parties. Thus a contract to convey one acre out of a larger tract of land, which has been selected and taken possession of by the vendee before suit is brought,13 is thus rendered sufficiently definite. So if a contract contains terms which may be construed so as to be inconsistent, the subsequent conduct of the parties in construing them as consistent may make the contract sufficiently definite to be enforced specifically.14 A vendor cannot object that a modification of a contract, favorable to himself and treated by the vendee in his suit as a valid part of the contract, vitiates the whole contract for uncertainty by reason of a failure to name the vendee therein.15

6 Wilkin v. Voss, 120 la. 500; 94 N. W. 1123; Hall v. Loomis, 63 Mich. 709; 30 N. W. 374. Even in cases of specific performance one who has the means of knowing the contents of a written contract which he signs is said to be estopped to deny that he knew its contents; Minneapolis, etc., Ry. v. Cox, 76 la. 306; 14 Am. St. Rep. 216; 41 N. W. 24.

7 Todd v. Iron Co.. 8 Houst. (Del.) 372; 14 Atl. 27. (Deceit as to value of stock.) New England Trust Co. v. Abbott. 162 Mass. 148; 27 L. R. A. 271; 38 N. E. 432.

8 Wilson v. Keating, 4 De G. & J. 588.

9 Sec. 129, 155.

10 Engberry v. Rousseau, 117 Wis. 52; 93 N. W. 824.

11 See Sec. 1615 et seq.

1 See Sec. 27, 28.

2 De Sollar v. Hanscome, 158 U. S. 216; Carr v. Duval. 14 Pet. (U. S.) 77; Foster v. Maginnis, 89 Cal. 264; 26 Pac. 828; Todd v. Iron Co.. 8 Houst. (Del.) 372; 14 Atl. 27; Glos v. Wilson. 198 111. 44; 64 N. E. 734; Shaw v. Sclioonover. 130 111. 44S; 22 N. E. 589; Burke v. Mead. 159 Ind. 252; 64 N. E. 880; Corliss v. Conable. 74 la. 58; 30 N. W. 891; Blanchard v. Ry.. 31 Mich. 43; 18 Am. Rep. 142; Lowe v. Lowe, S3 Minn. 206: 83 X. W. 11; Burke v. Roy JO Minn. 34: 41 N. W. 240; Kinney v. Murray. 170 Mo. 674;

S. W. 197; Largey v. Leggat, -Mont. - ; 75 Pac. 950; Clarke v. Koenig, 36 Neb. 572; 54 N. W. 842; Moore v. Galupo, - N. J. Eq. -; 55 Atl. 628; Myers v. Metzger, 63 N. J. Eq. 779; 52 Atl. 274; Ferguson v. Blaekwell, 8 Okla. 489; 58 Pac. 647; Knight v. Alexander, 42 Or. 521; 71 Pac. 657; Agnew v. Land Co., 204 Pa. St. 192; 53 Atl. 752; Spear v. Long, 32 S. C. 528; 11 S. E. 332; Morrison v. Searight, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 476; Ensminger v. Peterson, 53 W. Va. 324; 44 S. E. 218; Hissam v. Parrish, 41 W. Va. 686; 56 Am. St. Rep. 892; 24 S. E. 600; Park v. Ry., 114 Wis. 347; 89 N. W. 532.

3 Stanton v. Singleton, 126 Cal.

657; 47 L. R. A. 334; 59 Pac. 146.

4 Oxford v. Crow (1895), 3 Ch.

535; Todd v. Iron Co., 8 Houst.

(Del.) 372; 14 Atl. 27; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516; Moore v. Galupo, - N. J. Eq. - ; 55 Atl. 628.

5 Todd v. Iron Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 372; 14 Atl. 27.

6 Moore v. Galupo, - N. J. Eq. -; 55 Atl. 628.

7 Tryce v. Dittus, 199 111. 189; 65 N. E. 220.

8 Bauer v. Coal Co., 209 111. 316; 70 N. E. 634; Glos v. Wilson, 198 111. 44; 64 N. E. 734; Hanly v. Blackford, 1 Dana (Ky.) 1; 25 Am. Dec. 114; Agnew v. Land Co., 204 Pa. St. 192; 53 Atl. 752.

9 Rampke v. Buehler, 203 111. 384; 67 N. E. 796.

10 Newman v. Perril, 73 Ind. 153.

11 Knight v. Alexander, 42 Or. 521; 71 Pac. 657