6 B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Cumberland, 106 Md. 587, 68 Atl. 351.

7B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Cumberland, 106 Md. 587, 68 Atl. 351.

8 Ferber v. Cona, 91 N. J. L. 688, 103 Atl. 471.

9 Smoot v. United States, 237 U. S. 38, 59 L. ed. 829 [affirming judgment, Smoot v. United States, 48 Ct. Cl. 427].

10Bowen v. Ry., 34 S. Car. 217, 13 S. E. 421.

11 Hamilton v. State (Miss.), 8 So. 761; Gottstein v. Lumber Co., 7 Wash. 424, 35 Pac. 133.

12Stix v. Roulston, 88 Ga. 743, 15 S. E. 826; Furness-Withy v. Fahey, 127 Md. 333, 96 Atl. 619.

13 Bellamy v. Debenham, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 481; Mt. Holly, etc., Co. v. Caraleigh, etc., Works, 72 Fed. 244, 16 C. C. A. 535; Globe Refining Co. T. Guano Co., 112 Ga. 366, 37 S. E. 379; Hamilton v. State (Miss.), 8 So. 761.

14 Dixon v. Williamson, 173 Mass. 50, 52 N. E. 1067.

15 Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins Co., 105 Minn. 483, 117 N. W. 825.

16 Billings v. Wilby, 175 N. Car. 571, 96 S. E. 50.

17 Aurora Water Co. v. Aurora, 1*20 Mo. 540, 31 S. W. 946; Wolff Dryer Co. v. Bigler, 192 Pa. St. 466, 43 Atl. 1092; Stacy v. Rose (Tenn. Ch. App.), 58 S. W. 1087.

18 Dean v. Mfg. Co., 177 Mass. 137, 58 N. E. 162; Picard v. Beers, 195 Maes. 419, 81 N. E. 246; Richards v. Manitowoc & N. Trac. Co., 140 Wis. 85, 121 N. W. 937.

19Kendrick v. Visage, 88 Ga. 275, 14 S. E. 612.

20 St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Milk Co., 175 111. 557. 67 Am. St. Rep. 238, 51 N. E. 911.

21 Picard v. Beers, 195 Mass. 419, 81 N. E. 246.

22 John 8. Brittain Dry-Goods Co. v. Birkenfeld, 20 Mont. 347, 51 Pac. 263.

23 C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. Frisbie Co., 66 Conn. 67, 33 Atl. 604.

While the parties to a contract may modify it by a subsequent contract which is shown by their acts,25 the acts which are relied upon to modify a prior contract must be unequivocal in their character.26 Acts which are ambiguous in their character, and which are consistent either with the continued existence of the original contract, or with a modification thereof, are not sufficient to establish a modification.27

Conduct which is not necessarily inconsistent with the continuation of a contract, will not be regarded as showing an implied agreement to discharge it, although such conduct might have been consistent with an agreement to discharge such prior contract.28 A contract by which the widow of a decedent is given the right to use certain realty of the decedent while she remains his widow, does not require her to occupy such property in person; and the fact that she leases such property to one of the heirs of the decedent does not indicate an implied understanding that the original contract shall terminate.29 The fact that the parties to a contract to intermarry enter into improper relations does not indicate that the original contract is terminated,30 although the fact of such improper relationship may be the motive for delaying performance of the original contract.31

A definite refusal to perform unless the adversary party consents to a modification, suggested by the party who thus refuses performance, amounts to breach.32

24 Smith v. Bierce, 104 La. 96, 28 So. 905.

25See Sec. 2471 and 2401.

26Bearden Mercantile Co. v. Madison Oil Co., 128 Ga. 605, 58 S. E. 200: Boyden v. Hill, 198 Mass. 477, 85 N. E. 413; Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 105 Minn. 483, 117 N. W. 825; Herpol-sheimer v. Christopher, 76 Neb. 352, 107 N. W. 382.

27 Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 105 Minn. 483, 117 N. W. 826.

28 Henderson v. Henderson, 136 Ia. 564, 114 N. W. 178; Crosaett v. Brackett, - N. H. - . 105 Atl. 5.

29 Henderson v. Henderson, 136 Ia. 564, 114 N. W. 178.

30 Crossett v. Brackett. - N. H. - ,

105 Atl. 5.

31 Crosaett v. Brackett, - N. H. - ,

106 Atl. 5.

32 Richards v. Manitowoc & N. Traction Co., 140 Wis. 85, 121 N. W. 937. See ch. LXXXIV.

In order to establish a new contract which modifies or terminates the original contract, it must be shown that the parties agreed upon some definite modification.33