The contract has thus far been considered in determining whether time is of the essence or not. When we turn from contracts to options, we find that both at law and equity an option which is in the nature of an offer outstanding for a certain period of time, must be accepted within the time limited, or it lapses. Accordingly, time is held to be of the essence of options both at law and in equity.1 " Where, as in this case, the contract invests the one party with no title whatever, imposes no obligation upon him, leaves it optional with him to do a certain thing at a specified time, in such case time in the broadest sense of the rule, is of the essence of the contract, and the failure of such party to comply with its terms deprives him of the right to demand the enforcement of the contract."2 This rule applies to options for the sale of realty,3 of a railway,4 or of personalty, such as corporate stock,5 or a horse,6 or to the right given to the maker of a note to have it canceled if he performs a specified act at a given time.7 So the right of a debtor to elect to pay a debt in something other than money is a right of which time is of the essence.8 The fact that negotiations are prolonged under an option up to the evening of the last day of its duration does not extend it beyond the time fixed by it.9 So a contract whereby a mortgagee agrees to accept on foreclosure a sum less than the amount due him, part of the amount bid to go to a junior mortgagee, if payment is made by a specified time, is a contract of which time is of the essence.10 An option to renew an insurance policy must be exercised within the time limited therefor.11

4 University v. Trust Co., 87 Ia. 36, 53 N. W. 1080.

1 Cincinnati, etc., R. R. v. Bensley, 51 Fed. 738, 19 L. R. A. 796, 2 C. C. A. 480; Jordan v. Newton, 116 Mich. 674, 75 N. W. 130; Port Huron, etc., Ry. v. Richards, 90 Mich. 577, 51 N. W. 680; Garrison v. Cooke, 96 Tex. 228, 97 Am. St. Rep. 906, 61 L. R. A. 342, 72 S. W. 54.

Contra, Witmer Bros. Co. v. Weid, 108 Gal. 569, 41 Pac. 491.

2 Thornton v. Ry., 84 Ala. 109, 5 Am. St. Rep. 337, 4 So. 197. (Suit in equity.)

3Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 45 Minn. 164, 47 N. W. 652.

1 California. Upton v. Travelers' Insurance Co., - Cal. - , 2 A. L. R. 1597, 178 Pac. 851.

Connecticut. Saraceno v. Carrano, 92 Conn. 563, 103 Atl. 631.

Kentucky. Stembridge v. Stem-bridge, 87 Ky. 91, 7 S. W. 611; Smith v. Howard (Ky.), 105 S. W. 411, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 211.

Michigan. Edmonds v. Evarts, 146 Mich. 485, 109 N. W. 844.

Oklahoma. Mitchell v. Probst, 52 Okla. 10, 152 Pac 597.

West Virginia. Dyer v. Duffy, 39 W. Va. 148, 19 S. E. 540, 24 L. R. A. 339. See Sec. 141.

2 Stembridge v. Stem bridge, 87 Ky. 91, 94, 7 S. W. 611.

3 California. Martin v. Morgan, 87 Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. Rep. 240, 25 Pac. 350.

Kentucky. Stembridge v. Stem-bridge, 87 Ky. 91, 7 S. W. 611.

Maryland. Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 6 Am. St. Rep. 417, 11 Atl. 284.

Texas. Johnson v. Portwood, 89 Tex. 235, 34 S. W. 596, 787.

Wisconsin. Cummings v. Realty Co., 86 Wis. 382, 57 N. W. 43.

4 Columbian Equipment Co. v. Ry., 74 Fed. 920..

5 Stevens v. Hertzler, 109 Ala. 423,

19 So. 838; Chaffee v. Ry., 146 Mass. 224, 16 N. E. 34; Edmonds v. Evarts, 146 Mich. 485, 109 N. W. 844.

6 Roberts v. Norton, 66 Conn. 1, 33 Atl. 532.

7 Stout v. Watson, 45 Minn. 454, 48 N. W. 195.

8 See ch. LXXX.

9 Cummings v. Realty Co., 86 Wis. 382, 57 N. W. 43,

10Eargle v. Lorick, 55 S. Car. 431, 33 S. E. 490.

11 Upton v. Travelers' Insurance Co., - Cal. - , 2 A. L. R. 1597, 178 Pac. 851.