This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A contract of subscription which provides that the use of certain realty shall be given without charge, is performed substantially if one dollar a year is charged for such use which is reasonably worth about thirty thousand dollars a year.1 A contract for subscription of money to be paid to the owner of the premises where a specified stock exchange is situated, is performed substantially if such building is erected upon ground which is leased for that purpose.2 A contract to locate a business at a certain town is substantially performed by locating such business there, in good faith, though it is subsequently removed, or its property and franchises are sold at judicial sale to one who removes the business.3 A contract to publish a - newspaper in an addition to a town for a given time is substantially performed where the paper is printed and distributed in such addition for such time, though the publisher writes his editorials and sets type for a small portion of the time outside of such addition, because the adversary party does not furnish him an office as he had agreed to to do.4
5 Spalding v. Mason, 161 U. S. 375, 40 L. ed. 738.
6 Singer Mfg. Co. v. McLean, 105 Ala-316, 16 So. 912; Shoemaker v. Acker, 116 Cal. 239, 48 Pac. 62.
7 Craig v. Weitner, 33 Neb. 484, 50 N. W 442.
8 Council v. Teal, 122 Ga. 61, 49 S. E. 806; McGuire v. J. Nells Lumber Co., 97 Minn. 293, 107 N. W. 130; Home v. McRae, 53 S. Car. 51, 30 S.
E. 701; Collins v. Davis ft Elkins College, 72 W. Va. 583, 79 S. E. 10.
9 Council v. Teal, 122 Ga 61, 49 S. E. 806.
10 Torgerson v. Hauge, 34 N. D. 646, 3 A. L. R. 164, 159 N. W. 6.
1 Merchants' Bldg. Imp. Co. v. Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co.. 210 111. 26, 102 Am. St. Hep. 145, 71 N. E. 22.
2 Merchants' Bldg. Imp. Co. v. Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co., 210 111. 26. 102 Am. St. Rep. 145, 71 N. E. 22.
A contract to locate a business5 is not substantially performed by merely constructing the buildings in which it is expected that such business will thereafter operate; nor is a contract to locate the business of a specified corporation in a certain city substantially performed by transferring the business and good will of the corporation to a partnership formed of men who were interested in such corporation and who transfer such business to such city.6
The doctrine of substantial performance applies to contracts to locate railroads.7 A contract that one road should intersect another "at" a given city is substantially performed where they intersect within a hundred yards of the city limits.8 A contract by which a street railway company agrees to "build its road" to a given place, is substantially performed, though for part of the distance such railway exercises its statutory right to make use of the track of another railway company.9 However, a contract to extend a railroad to a certain section of land is not performed by extending beyond such section, but not nearer to it than five hundred feet.10 Building a different railroad from that agreed upon is not substantial performance of such contract.11
3 Elizabethtown v. Ry., 94 Ky. 377, 22 S. W. 609.
4 Sanborn v. Murphy, 86 Tex. 437, 25 S. W. 610.
5 Ft. Wayne Electric Light Co. v. Miller, 131 Ind. 499, 14 L. R. A. 804, 30 N. E. 23.
6 Keys v. Weaver, 95 Ia. 13, 63 N. W. 357.
7 Judson v. Gage, 91 Cal. 304, 27 Pac. 676.
8 Ft. Worth, etc., Ry. v. Williams (Tex.), 18 S. W. 206. (The word "at" as applied to the intersection was contrasted by the court with "in" as applied to the location of the depot.)
9 Los Angeles Traction Co. v. Wll-shire, 135 Cal. 654, 67 Pac. 1086.
10 Stevens v. Ambler, 30 Fla. 575, 23 So. 10.
11 Northup v. Standifer (Ky.), 23 8. W. 348; Northup v. Ward (Ky.), 16 S. W. 247.