In equity, on the other hand, the general rule may be said to be that time is not of the essence of the contract.1 "It must affirmatively appear that the parties regarded time or place as an essential element in their agreement or a court of equity will not go regard it."2 In order to make time of the essence of the contract in equity, there must be either an express provision, making time of the essence,3 or the nature of the subject-matter must be such as to require prompt performance at the time stipulated. The reason for this difference between law and equity is, that in law the promisee acquires, as a rule, no interest in the property under an executory contract until he either performs or tenders performance. In equity, on the other hand, the vendee acquires an interest in the property contracted for when the contract of sale is made, and the assignment of a particular day for the payment of the purchase money is looked upon as merely formal, to secure payment in a reasonable time.4 A contract for the payment of money at a given time is ordinarily a contract of which time is not of the essence;5 and so is a contract to release a mortgage,6 or a contract for the adjustment of an existing mortgage indebtedness.7

14 Lowber v. Bangs, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 728, 17 L. ed. 768.

15Phillips, etc., Co. v. Seymour, 91 U. S. 646, 23 L. ed. 341; Morrison v. Wells, 48 Kan. 494, 29 Pac. 601; Allen v. Cooper, 22 Me. 133; Johnson v. Slay-maker, 18 Ohio C. C. 104, 9 Ohio C. D. 500

16 Wood v. Gaslight Co., 111 Fed. 463, 49 C. C. A. 427.

"Slater v. Emerson. 60 U. S. (19 How.) 224, 15 L. ed. 626.

18 Osgood v. Boston, 165 Mass. 281, 43 N E. 108.

19Utley v. Lumber Co., 59 Mich. 263, 26 N. W. 488. It has been said that the legal title to the standing timber passes to the grantee, and that accordingly, he may cut it and take it away after the time limit has expired, but that if he does so after the time limit has expired, he is liable in tort to the grantor for the damage which he has done to the possession. Zimmerman Manufacturing Co. v. Daffin, 149 Ala. 380, 123 Am. St. Rep. 58, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 663, 42 So. 858.

20Thacker, etc., Co. v. Mallory, 27 Wash. 670, 68 Pac. 199.

21 Halstead v. Jessup, 150 Ind. 85, 49 N. E. 821.

1 England. Hearne v. Tenant, 13 Ves. Jr. 287.

United States. Hepburn v. Auld, 9 U. S. (5 Cranch) 262, 3 L. ed. 96; Brown v. Deposit Co., 128 U. S. 403, 32 L. ed. 468.

Arkansas. Vance v. Newman, 72 Ark. 359, 105 Am. St. Rep. 42, 80 S W. 574; Butler v. Colson, 99 Ark. 340, 138 S. W. 467.

Florida. Chabot v. Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 43 Am. St. Rep. 192, 15 So. 756; Tate v. Development Co., 37 Fla. 430, 53 Am. St. Rep. 251, 20 So. 542.

Idaho. Buster v. Fletcher, 22 Ida. 172, 125 Pac. 226.

Indiana. Boldt v. Early, 33 Ind. App. 434, 104 Am. St. Rep. 255, 70 N. E. 371.

Kansas. Sanford v. Weeks, 38 Kan. 319, 5 Am. St. Rep. 748, 16 Pac. 465; Reid v. Mix, 63 Kan. 745, 55 L. R. A. 706, 66 Pac. 1021.

Kentucky. Kemper v. Walker (Ky), 32 S. W. 1093.

North Carolina. Porter v. White, 128 N. Car. 42, 38 S. E. 24.

Washington. Virtue v. Stanley, 87 Wash. 167, 151 Pac. 270.

West Virginia. Jarvis v. Cowger, 41 W. Va. 268, 23 S. E. 522.

2Secombe v. Steele, 61 U. S. (20 How.) 94, 104, 15 L. ed. 833.

3 Brown v. Deposit Co., 128 U. S. 403, 32 L. ed. 468; Chabot v. Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 43 Am. St. Rep. 192, 15 So. 756; Tate v. Development Co., 37 Fla. 439, 53 Am. St. Rep. 251, 20 So. 542; Frink v. Thomas, 20 Or. 265, 12 L. R. A. 239, 25 Pac. 717.

4Secombe v. Steele, 61 U. S. (20 How.) 94, 15 L. ed. 833; Solomon v. Shewitz, 185 Mich. 620, 3 A. L. R. 557, 152 N. W. 196.

5 Arkansas. Vance v. Newman, 72 Ark. 359, 105 Am. St. Rep. 42, 80 S. W. 574.

Florida. Tate v. Development Co.. 37 Fla. 439, 53 Am. St. Rep. 251, 20 So. 542.

Indiana. Boldt v. Early, 33 Ind. App. 434, 104 Am. St. Rep. 255, 70 N. E. 371.

Massachusetts. Barnard v. Lee, 97 Mass. 92.

North Carolina. Allred v. Burns, 106 N. Car. 247, 10 S. E. 1034.

Oregon. Frink v. Thomas, 20 Or. 265, 12 L. R. A. 239, 25 Pac. 717.

Pennsylvania. Sylvester v. Born, 132 Pa. St. 467, 19 Atl. 337.

West Virginia. Jarvis v. Cowger, 41 W. Va. 268, 23 S. E. 522.

6 Reid v. Mix, 63 Kan. 745, 55 L. R. A. 706, 66 Pac. 1021.

7 Virtue v. Stanley, 87 Wash. 167, 151 Pac. 270.