Time is not regarded as of the essence of a contract where it concerns a provision, a breach of which does not constitute a total failure of consideration.1 Thus where the two upper stories were leased, and were ready for occupancy where agreed upon, the lessee can not avoid the lease because the rest of the building was not completed at the time agreed upon.2 Even under a contract of subscription of which time is usually the essence,3 failure of a university to erect a second building at the time agreed upon, after erecting the first building on time and opening for work, is not breach of an essential cerm."

6 Beverly v. Blackwood, 102 Cal. 83, 36 Pac. 378.

7 Hoffman V. Ry., 157 Pa. St. 174, 27 Atl 564.

8 Monarch v. Owensboro City Ry., 119 Ky. 939, 85 S. W. 193.

9 Rogers v. Sauders, 16 Me. 92, 33 Am. Dec. 635.

10Brashier v. Gratz, 19 U. S. (6 Wheat.) 528, 5 L. ed. 322.

11Garber v. Sutton, 96 Va. 469, 31 8. E. 894.

12 Pacific, etc., Co. v. Loofbourow, 129 Cal. 24, 61 Pac. 944.

13 Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 109 Ky. 624, 95 Am. St. Rep. 393, 60 S. W. 383.

1 University v. Trust Co., 87 Ia. 36. 53 N. W. 1080; Lynch v. Bechtel.19 Mont. 548, 48 Pac. 1112; Coos Bay. etc., Co. v. Dixon, 30 Or. 584, 48 Pac. 360.

2 Lynch v. Bechtel. 19 Mont. 548, 48 Pac. 1112.

3 See Sec. 2111.