In the great majority of cases, however, a condition is not made self-executing, but it is inserted for the benefit of one of the parties thereto; and the provision for such condition is so worded that its legal effect is to give to the party for whose benefit the condition is reserved, the right to take advantage of such condition if he sees fit, or to waive the breach of the condition, on the other hand, if he prefers.1 Provisions for accelerating the maturity of contracts for the payment of money in case of certain specified defaults, are frequently so worded that the creditor has the election in case of such default either to declare the debt due at once, or to waive such default and to treat the debt as due in accordance with the terms of the original contract.2 Under a contract for the sale of land, which provides that in the event of certain specified defaults, the vendor may declare such contract void, the default of the purchaser does not of itself terminate the contract automatically, and such contract is not terminated unless the vendor elects so to do upon the happening of such specified breach.3 A condition in a policy of fire insurance against additional insurance may be so worded as to make the policy void in case of breach only if the insurer so elects.4

If a condition is inserted in a contract for the benefit of one of the parties, the adversary party can not take advantage of a breach thereof.5 A provision in a contract for the payment of money for the acceleration of maturity in case of certain specified defaults, is ordinarily so worded that it is evidently inserted for the benefit of the creditor alone. In such ease the debtor can not take advantage of breach of such condition; 6 and the period of limitations does not begin to run until the creditor has elected to take advantage of such breach and to treat the maturity of such instrument as accelerated in accordance with the provisions of the contract.7 A provision in a contract for building vessels, by which, in the event of default by the contractor, the owner may complete the work himself, is inserted for the benefit of the owner, and he alone can take advantage thereof.8 A provision inserted for the benefit of the owner that, if emergency demands, the engineer in charge "may make alterations in any part of the work," can not be invoked by the contractor to require such alterations to be made for his benefit.9 A provision for discharge for non-performance inserted in a land contract for the benefit of the vendor, and to be exercised at his option, can not be taken advantage of by the vendee.10 A provision inserted for the benefit of the vendor, that default by the vendee in paying the purchase money note at maturity shall make the contract void, can not be taken advantage of by the vendee.11 Default in payment of interest on school lands purchased by the defaulting vendee does not discharge him from liability for the purchase price if the state wishes to treat the contract as in effect, though a statutory provision makes such default work a forfeiture.12 A condition in a contract, whereby A agrees to drill an oil well on B's land, to the effect that A's failure to commence such well and to complete it in accordance with the terms of the contract, is intended for B's benefit, and A can not terminate such contract by his own default.13 A condition in a lease, which provides for its termination in case the property is sold by the lessor, is probably for the benefit of the lessor; and in any event if the lessee remains in possession, he is liable for rent after such sale in accordance with the provisions of the lease.14

1 Florida. Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vann, 60 Fla. 540, L. R. A. 1016B, 1189, 68 So. 647.

Iowa. Westervelt v. Huiskamp, 101 Ia. 106, 70 N. W. 125.

Montana. Saville v. Aetna Ins. Co., 8 Mont. 410, 3 L. R. A. 542, 20 Pac. 646.

Oklahoma. Lavery v. Mid-Continent Oil Development Co., - Okla. -, L. R. A. 1917D, 231, 162 Pac. 737.

Oregon. Higinbotham v. Frock, 48 Or. 129, 120 Am. St. Rep. 796, 7L.R.A. (N.S.) 701, 83 Pac. 536.

Wisconsin. Zwickey v. Haney, 63 Wis. 464, 23 N. W. 577.

2 Zwickey v. Haney, 63 Wis. 464, 23 N. W. 577.

3 Higinbotham v. Frock, 48 Or. 129,

120 Am. St. Rep. 796, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 791, 83 Pac. 536.

4 Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vann, 69 Fla. 540, L. R. A. 1016B, 1189, 68 So. 647; Saville v. Aetna Ins. Co., 8 Mont. 419, 3 L. R. A. 542, 20 Pac. 646.

5 Arkansas. Orr v. State, 56 Ark. 107, 10 S. W. 310.

California. Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal 716, L. R. A. 1913C, 234, 115 Pac. 743 (see concurring opinion).

Colorado. First National Bank v. Park, 37 Colo. 303, 86 Pac. 106.

Florida. Shouse v. Doane, 30 Fla. 95, 21 So. 807.

Iowa. Westervelt v. Huiskamp, 101 Ia. 106, 70 N. W. 125; Lasher v. Ins Co., 115 Ia. 231, 88 N. W. 375.

Kansas. Kennedy v. Gibson, 68 Kan. 612, 75 Pac. 1044; Fisher v. Spillman, 86 Kan. 552, 118 Pac. 65.

Massachusetts. Magnolia Metal Co. v. Gale, 180 Mass. 124, 75 N. E. 219.

Minnesota. Bobbins v. Morgan, 66 Minn. 304, 57 N. W. 790.

Mississippi. Central Trust Co. v. Meridian Light & Railway Co. (Miss.), 64 So. 216.

Nebraska. Fletcher v. Daugherty, 13 Neb. 224, 13 N. W. 207.

New Jersey. Vickers v. Commercial Co., 66 N. J. L. 9, 48 Atl. 606; Ramsey v. Perth Amboy Shipbuilding & Engineering Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 165, 65 Atl. 461.

North Carolina. Standard Dry Kiln Co. v. Ellington, 172 N. Car. 481, 90 S. E. 564.

North Dakota. McCarty v. Goods-man, - N. 1). -, 167 N. W. 503.

Washington. Weinberg v. Naher, 51 Wash. 591, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 959, 99 Pac. 736 (obiter).

6 Colorado. First National Bank v. Park, 37 Colo. 303, 86 Pac. 106.

Kansas. Kennedy v. Gibson, 68 Kan. 612, 75 Pac. 1044; Fisher v. Spillman, 85 Kan. 552, 118 Pac. 65.

Mississippi. Central Trust Co. v. Meredian Light & Railway Co. (Miss.), 64 So. 216.

Nebraska. Fletcher v. Daugherty, 13 Neb. 224, 13 N. W. 207.

North Carolina. Standard Dry Kiln Co. v. Ellington, 172 N. Car. 481, 90 S.

E. 564.

North Dakota. McCarty v. Goods-man, - N. D. -, 167 N. W. 603.

Washington. Weinberg v. Naher, 51 Wash. 501, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 969, 99 Pac. 736 (obiter).

7 Colorado. First National Bank v. Park, 37 Colo. 303, 86 Pac. 106.

Kansas. Fisher v. Spillman, 85 Kan. 552, 118 Pac. 65.

Mississippi. Central Trust Co. v. Meridian Light & Railway Co. (Miss.),

64 So. 216.

Nebraska. Fletcher v. Daugherty, 13 Neb. 224, 13 N. W. 207.

North Carolina. Standard Dry Kiln Co. v. Ellington, 172 N. Car. 481, 90 S. E. 564.

North Dakota. McCarty v. Goods-man, - N. D. -, 167 N. W. 603.

Washington. Weinberg v. Naher, 51 Wash. 501, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 959, 99 Pac. 736 (obiter).

8 Ramsey v. Perth Amboy Shipbuilding & Engineering Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 165,

65 Atl. 461 [affirmed, Ramsey v. Perth Amboy Shipbuilding & Engineering Co., 73 N. J. Eq. 742, 70 Atl. 1101].

One who elects to take advantage of a breach which he may enforce or waive at his option, must be able to show that he himself was ready and willing to perform the covenants on his part to be performed, except as far as his performance was prevented by such breach of condition.15 A contractor who has reserved the right to stop work in case of the failure of the owner to pay the instalments then due under the contract, can not take advantage of such breach of condition on the part of the owner if he himself has not performed the terms of the contract and has not furnished bond as required by such contract.16

9 National Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth, 183 Mass. 89, 60 N. E. 630. ("May" does not here mean "shall.")

10 California. Wilcoxson v. Stitt, 65 Cal. 596, 52 Am. Rep. 310, 4 Pac. 629.

Illinois. Mason v. Caldwell, 10 Ill. 196, 48 Am. Dec. 330.

Kansas. Chambers v. Anderson, 51 Kan. 385, 32 Pac. 1008.

Kentucky. Barbour v. Brookie, 26 Ky. (3 J. J. Mar.) 511.

Maine. Kites v. Phinney, 90 Me. 122, 37 Atl. 880.

Massachusetts. Meagher v. Hoyle, 173 Mass. 577, 54 N. E. 347.

Rhode Island. Anderson v. Nelson, -R. I. -, 101 Atl 136.

11 Westervelt v. Huiskamp, 101 Ia. 196, 70 N. W. 125.

12 Orr v. State, 56 Ark. 107, 19 S. W. 319.

13 Lavery v. Mid-Continent Oil Development Co., - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917D, 231, 162 Pac. 737.

14 Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716, L. R. A. 1915C, 234, 115 Pac. 743 (see concurring opinion).

15 Schillinger Bros. Co. v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co. (Ia.), 116 N. \V. 132; Higin-botham v. Frock, 48 Or. 129, 120 Am. St. Rep 796, 7 L. R. A. (N.S.) 791, 83 Pate. 536.