West Virginia. Poling v. Lumber Co., 55 W. Va. 529, 47 S. E. 279.

2 Poling v. Condon-Lane Boom & Lumber Co., 55 W. Va. 529, 47 S. E. 279.

3 See Sec. 2103 et seq.

4 Puls v. Casey, 18 Okla. 142, 92 Pac. 388.

5 Equitable Manufacturing Co. v. Howard, 148 Ala. 664, 41 So. 628; Bell v. Mendenhall, 78 Minn. 57, 80 N. W. 843; Holden v. Royal, 169 N. Car. 676, 86 S. E. 583; Markley v. Godfrey, 254 Pa. St. 99, 98 Atl. 785.

6 Reynolds v. Reynolds, 74 Vt. 463, 52 Atl. 1036.

7 United States. Guastavino Co. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 115.

Georgia. Bryant v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 119 Ga. 607, 46 S. E. 829.

Kentucky. Hume v. Mullins (Ky.), 35 S. W. 551.

Michigan. Gainor v. Boom Co., 86 Mich. 112, 48 N. W. 787.

Rhode Island. Lynd v. Printing Co., 20 R. I. 344, 39 Atl. 188.

8 Meader v. Allen, 110 Ia. 588, 81 N W. 799.

9Noyes v. Barnard, 63 Fed. 782; Michael v. Foil, 100 N. Car. 178, 6 Am. St. Rep. 577, 6 S. E. 264; Williamson v. Neeves, 94 Wis. 656, 69 N. W. 806.

10 Illinois. McKinnie v. Lane, 230 111. 544, 120 Am. St. Rep. 338, 82 N. E. 878.

Iowa. Boyce v. Timpe (Ia.), 89 N. W. 83.

Montana. Watkins v. Morris, 16 Mont. 309, 40 Pac. 600.

Oklahoma. Puls v. Casey, 18 Okla. 142, 92 Pac. 388.

South Carolina. Smith v. Machine Co., 46 S. Car. 511, 24 S. E. 376.

11Niles v. Graham, 181 Mass. 41, 62 N. E. 986.

12 House. Lane v. Hardware Co., 121 Ala. 296, 25 So. 809; Brodek v. Farnum, 11 Wash. 565, 40 Pac. 189. Steam plant. North v. Mallory, 94 Md. 305, 51 Atl. 89. Electric lighting plant. Florence, etc., Co. v. Hanby, 101 Ala. 15, 13 So. 343. Flouring mill. Van stone v. Mfg. Co., 142 U. S. 128, 35 L. ed. 961; Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492, 84 N. E. 94.

13Dutton v. Shaw (Miss.), 38 So. 638.

14Dutton v. Shaw (Mis*.), 38 So. 638.

15 Brookings Lumber & Box Co. v. Manufacturers' Automatic Sprinkler Co., 173 Cal. 679, 161 Pac. 266.

16 Brookings Lumber & Box Co. v. Manufacturers* Automatic Sprinkler Co., 173 Cal. 679, 161 Pac. 266.

17Griffin v. Ogletree, 114 Ala. 343, 21 So. 488; Greenwood v. Davis, 106 Mich. 230, 64 N. W. 26.

18Bonifay v. Hassell, 100 Ala. 269, 14 So. 46; Gainor v. Boom Co., 86 Mich. 112, 48 N. W. 787; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159, 75 N. W. 1.

19 Pratt Consolidated Coal Co. v. Short, 191 Ala. 378, 68 So. 63.

20 Collier v. Weyman, 114 Ga. 944, 41 S. E. 50.

21 Boyd v. Watson, 101 Ia. 214, 70 N. W. 120.

Contra, that such a contract is revocable at the will of the owner of the realty. Woods v. Hart, 50 Neb. 497, 70 N. W. 53.

22Hildreth v. Ayer & Lord Tie Co. (Ky.), 108 S. W. 255, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 1212.

23 Whiting v. Gray, 27 Fla. 482, 11 L. R. A. 526, 8 So. 726.

24 Merriman v. Cover, 104 Va. 428, 51 S. E. 817.

25 Ferguson v. Arthur, 128 Mich. 297, 87 N. W. 259.

A grant of timber conveys the right to cut it at any time. Lodwick Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 100 Tex. 270, 123 Am. St. Rep. 803, 98 S. W. 238.

26 Moore v. McKenney, 83 Me. 80, 21 Atl. 749.

27 Anderson v. Wainwright, 67 Ark. 62, 53 S. W. 566. (An agreement to refrain from sale and collect the debt out of the rents.)

28 Lewis v. Worrell, 185 Mass. 572, 71 N. E. 73.

29Saraceno v. Carrano, 92 Conn. 563, 103 Atl. 631; Catlin v. Green, 120 N. Y. 441, 24 N. E. 941.

30Maurer v. King, 127 Cal. 114, 59 Pac. 290; La Dow v. Bement, 119 Mich. 685, 45 L. R. A. 479, 79 N. W. 1048.

Language which shows the intention of the parties to require prompt performance, but which does not provide for performance within a specified period of time or upon the happening of a specified event, has been treated as requiring performance within a reasonable. time in view of all the circumstances of the case.38 A contract that certain work should be done "with all possible dispatch,"39 or "faithfully and continuously,"40 has been held to contemplate performance within a reasonable time. Provisions which require performance "immediately,"41 or "at once,"42 or provisions for "prompt shipment,"43 require performance in a time which is less than would be regarded as a reasonable time, if such provisions were not inserted in the contract. The provision that performance must be made " immediately," is regarded as requiring performance at once; and it is error to instruct the jury that it means "as soon as could practically be done."44

31 Pennsylvania Mining Go. v. Thomas, 204 Pa. St. 325, 54 Atl. 101.

32Niles v. Graham, 181 Mass. 41, 62 N. E. 986.

33Pendleton v. Light Co., 121 N. Car. 20, 27 S. E. 1003. (The complaint was offered for filing in this case on the last day of the term when the judge was about to leave the bench.)

34 Edison, etc., Co. v. Navigation Co., 8 Wash. 370, 40 Am. St. Rep. 010, 24 L. R. A. 315, 36 Pac. 260.

See also, Turner v. Foundry Co., 97 Mich. 166, 634, 56 N. W. 356, 57 N. W. 192.

35 Burpee v. Guggenheim, 226 Fed. 274.

36 Burpee v. Guggenheim, 226 Fed. 214.

37 Andrews v. Uncle Joe Diamond Broker, 44 Wash. 668, 87 Pac. 947.

38 Rowan v. Sharps' Rifle Mfg. Co., 33 Conn. 1.

39 Rowan v. Sharps' Rifle Mfg. Co., 33 Conn. 1.

40Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. 946.

41 Inman v. Barnum. 115 Ga. 117, 41 S. E. 244.

42 Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Hamilton, 132 Ala. 593, 32 So. 306.

If the obligation of the contract is to pay a sum of money which is due and owing when the contract is entered into, and no provision is made by the terms of the contract for the time at which, such money is to be paid, such payment will be regarded as due at once or upon demand.45 A contract which provides for "annual payments," without fixing the amount for each, implies payments of such amounts that the entire sum will be paid in a reasonable time.46

Contracts which call for the performance of a continuous series of acts and which do not fix a time at which performance is to terminate, are often said to be subject to termination at the will of either party.47 A contract of employment which contemplates continuous performance by either, party and which does not fix the time at which such employment is to terminate, may be terminated at the will of either party.48 A contract by which a brewing company agrees to furnish beer to a bottling company, which does not specify the time for performance, may be terminated by either party at wilL49 A contract by which it was agreed that A should build a branch railroad over his land and permit the B railway company to move cars over such branch road, the B railroad company would transport certain goods over such connecting line free of charge if they were destined to points of the main line of the B railway company, was held to be subject to termination by the railway company at its election if no time for performance was fixed.50 A contract by which A agrees to furnish goods to B at fixed prices and which does not provide for its duration, has been said to be subject to termination by either at will upon notice,51 or at least to termination after a reasonable time and upon reasonable notice.52 This rule, however, is said not to apply to a case in which a water company has agreed to furnish water in consideration of an easement to build its line across certain realtv.53

43Soper v. Creighton, 03 Me. 564, 74 Am. St. Rep. 375, 45 Atl. 840; Tobias v. Lissberger, 105 N. Y. 404, 59 Am Rep. 509, 12 X. E. 13.

44 Streeter v. Streeter, 43 111. 155.

45 United States. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 103 Fed. 473.

Georgia. Hotel Lanier Go. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604, 30 S. E. 558.

Kansas. First National Bank v. Lightner, 74 Kan. 736, 118 Am. St. Rep. 353, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 231, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 596, 88 Pac. 59.

Ohio. Jones v. Brown, 11 O. S. 601.

Pennsylvania. Rhone v. Keystone Coal Co., 250 Pa. St. 336, 95 Ati. 530; Kann v. Kann, 256 Pa. St 103, 100 Atl. 582.

Wisconsin. Westburg v. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co., 117 Wis. 589, 94 N. W. 572 (obiter).

46 Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437, 101 N. W. 792.

47 Davis v. Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 20S 111. 376, 70 N. E. 359; Joliet Bottling Co. v. Joliet Citizens' Brewing Co., 254 111. 215, 98 N. E. 263; Arkansas Valley Town & Land Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 49 Okla. 282, 151 Pac. 1028; Stonega Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 106 Va. 223, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1184, 55 S. E. 551; Resener v. Watts, 73 W. Va. 342, 51 L. R. A. (X. S.) 629, 80 S E. 839.

43California. De Briar v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 450.

Delaware. Greer v. Mfg. Co., 1 Penn. (Del.) 581, 43 Atl. 609.

Kentucky. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Offutt, 99 Ky. 427, 59 Am. St. Rep 467, 36 S. W. 181.

Maryland. McCullough Iron Co. v. Carpenter, 67 Md. 554, 11 Atl. 176.

If a contract provides for the payment of money for goods, services, and the like, such money is due and payable when such goods are furnished or such labor is performed,54 unless the other terms of the contract show that payment was to be made at some other time.55 This principle applies even if the compensation is fixed at a certain sum per year.56 However, a contract by A to employ B as long as A is engaged in the saw-mill business on the Ohio River, does not give to A the right to discharge B at will.57 If a building contract provides that a contractor is to give bond and does not specify at what time the Bond is to be given, such bond is to be given as soon as the contract is entered into.58 If a seller agrees to give a bond for the purchase price, such bond must be given at least within a reasonable time after the contract was made.59 If A agrees to sell corporate stock to B, and A is to retain the dividends upon the stock and apply such dividends to the payment of four per cent, interest upon the purchase price, and the balance upon the purchase price, and the stock is to belong to the buyer when it is paid for by dividends or otherwise, a reasonable time for performance on both sides will be implied.60

New York. Copp v. Colorado Coal & I. Co., 46 N. Y. Supp. 542, 20 Misc. 702; Martin v. New York L. Ins. Co., 148 X. Y. 117, 42 N. E. 416.

North Carolina. Edwards v. Seaboard R. Co., 121 N. Car. 490, 28 S. E. 137.

Oregon. Christensen v. Borax Co., 26 Or. 302, 38 Pac. 127.

Pennsylvania. Kirk v. Hartman, 63 Pa. St. 97.

Rhode Island. Booth v. National India Rubber Co., 19 R. I. 696, 36 Atl. 714.

Wisconsin. Prentiss v. Ledyard, 28 Wis. 131.

A contract of employment upon a weekly, monthly or annual salary, but without any fixed period of employment, is prima facie a contract which may be terminated at the will of either party. Resener v. Watts, 73 W. Va. 342,51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 629, 80 S. E. 839

49 Joliet Bottling Co. v. Brewing Co., 254 111. 215, 98 N. E. 263.

50Stonega Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 106 Va. 223, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1184, 55 S. E. 551.

51 Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Lucker, 128 Minn. 171, 150 N. W. 790; Irish v. Dean, 39 Wis. 562.

52 Electric Ry. v. Tennessee Coal & Iron Ry. Co., 98 Ga. 189, 26 S. E. 741; McCullough-Dalzell Crucible Co. v. Philadelphia Co., 223 Pa. St. 336, 72 Atl. 633.

53 Southern Pacific Co. v. Spring Valley Water Co., 173 Cal. 291, L. R. A. 1917E, 680, 159 Pac. 865.

54In re Hellams, 223 Fed. 460; Stewart v. Newbury, 220 N. Y. 379, 115 N. E. 984.

55Lord v. Miller, 86 Wash. 436, 150 Pac. 631. For performance as a covenant precedent to a covenant to pay for such performance, see Ch. LXXVIII.