If the parties have made a new contract which is intended to supersede the original contract, the rights of the parties to the transaction are necessarily based upon the second contract.1 If a new contract provides for an extension of time, either express or by fair implication, failure to perform within the time fixed by the original contract can not be treated as a breach or as a discharge.2 If the builder under instructions from the architect departs from the plans, the owner of the building can not on that account make a deduction from the contract price.3 In an action for specific performance of the contract as modified, an answer setting up the original contract and the failure to perform such original contract, is insufficient.4

10 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Moran, 187 111. 316, 3S N. E. 333 [affirming, 83 111. App. 543]; Galveston v. Devlin, 84 Tex. 310, 1!) S. W. 393; Tribble v. Yakima Valley Transportation Co., 100 Wash. 389, 171 Pac. 544.

11 Morecraft v. Allen, 78 ST. J. L. 729. L. R. A. 1915B, 1, 75 Atl. 920.

1 United States. Alferitz v. Ingalls, 83 Fed. 964.

Alabama. Mobile Electric Co. v. Mobile, - Ala. - , 79 So. 39.

California. Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 317; McCrary v. Bowers, 20 Cal. 86; Welch v. Alington, 23 Cal. 322.

Colorado. Hoffman v. Murphy, 44 Colo. 107, 96 Pac. 780.

Connecticut. Beattie v. McMullen, 80 Conn. 160, 67 Atl. 488.

Illinois. Dale v. Kingstey, 163 111. 433, 45 X. E. 281; Hills v. McMunn, 232 111. 488, 83 N. E. 963.

Iowa. Duggleby v. Lewis Roofing Co., 139 Ia. 432, 116 N. W. 711.

Maryland. North v. Mallory, 94 Md. 305, 51 Atl. 89.

Massachusetts. Corey v. Woodin, 193 Mass. 464, 81 N. E. 260.

New Jersey. Canadian Imp. Co. v. Lea, 74 N. J. Eq. 234, 69 Atl. 455; McDowell v. Hemming Mfg. Co., - N. J. - , 102 Atl. 680.

New York. Clark v. Ulster and Delaware Railroad Co., 189 N. Y. 93, 121 Am. St. Rep. 848, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 164, 81 N. E. 766.

Tennessee. Perkins Oil Co. v. Eber-hart, 107 Tenn. 409, 64 S. W. 760.

Vermont. Pike v. Pike, 69 Vt. 335, 38 Atl. 265.

West Virginia. Myers v. Carnahan, 61 W. Va. 414, 57 S. E. 134.

Wisconsin. Security Trust & Life Ins. Co. v. Ellsworth, 129 Wis. 349, 109 X. W. 125.

1 Hughes v. Brennan Construction Co., 24 D. C. App. 90.

2Nothwang v. Harrison, 126 Ark. 348, 191 S. W. 2; Hills v. McMunn, 232 111. 488, 83 N. E. 963.

No action can in such cases be maintained on the original contract.5 If a contract for cutting timber has been extended by the voluntary agreement of the parties, the owner of the land can not maintain an action against the adversary party for cutting timber after the expiration of the original contract, but before the expiration of the time as thus extended.6

If the original contract has been modified by a subsequent valid agreement, action may be brought upon the contract as thus modified,7 and recovery may be had for breach thereof.8 If the parties to a building contract enter into a new contract whereby the original contract is modified, the contractor can recover more than the original contract price, if he has done more work than was originally contracted for.9

If a written contract is modified by subsequent oral agreement, an action must be brought upon the contract as modified.10 An action can not be brought upon the original contract,11 even if the new contract is broken,12 still less if it is performed.13

Discharge by a new contract does not affect the liabilities of either party to the contract to third parties. If A enters into a contract with B, whereby B agrees to construct certain buildings, or do certain work for A, and A and B subsequently discharge such contract by mutual agreement, A does not thereby incur any liability to persons having subcontracts with B.14

3 Smith v. Trust Co., 97 Ia. 117, 66 N. W. 84.

4 Hills v. McMunn, 232 H. 488, 83 N. E. 963.

5 Hayes v. Orr, 47 Fed. 286; Noth-wang v. Harrison, 126 Ark. 548, 191 S. W. 2; Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. v. Smith, 26 O. S. 124.

6 Nothwang v. Harrison, 126 Ark. 648, 191 S. W. 2.

7 Good v. Smith, 44 Or. 578, 76 Pac. 364; Hatch v. Gorlinski, 31 Utah 446, 88 Pac. 406.

8 Hatch v. Gorlinski, 31 Utah 446, 88 Pac. 406.

9 Smith v. Salt Lake City, 83 Fed. 784; Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Moran, 187

111. 316, 58 N. E. 335; Murphy v. Bank, 184 Pa. St. 208, 39 Atl. 143; Fitzgerald v. Walsh, 107 Wis. 92, 81 Am. St. Rep. 824, 82 N. W. 717.

10 Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Hardware Co., 201 111. 297, 66 N. E. 237.

11Herreshoff v. Misch, 21 R. I. 524, 45 Atl. 145.

12 Sioux City Stock Yards Co. v. Sioux City Packing Co., 110 Ia. 396, 81 N. W. 712; Napa Valley Wine Co. v. Daubner, 63 Minn. 112, 65 N. W. 143.

13 Lost Lake Lumber Co. v. Smith, 29 Wash. 713, 70 Pac. 134.

l4Peake v. New Orleans, 139 U. S. 342. 35 L. ed. 131; School District v. Thomas.. 51 Neb. 740, 71 N. W. 731.