While a contract is still executory on both sides, the renunciation of it by one of the parties thereto before the time for performance has arrived has, or may have, important legal consequences. What these consequences are is a question upon some branches of which the courts are practically unanimous; while upon other branches they are by no means as unanimous as the outward form of some of the state-ments of the law would lead us to believe.

Renunciation by one party excuses the other from any further offer to perform,1 so that the failure of such other party to perform or to tender performance does not give to the party who was originally in default the right to treat the contract as discharged because of such non performance; and such failure does not show that the party who was originally not in default and who has omitted to perform further, or to tender performance, has consented to treat such contract as discharged so as to prevent him from enforcing it thereafter,2 at least by an action for damages or some similar appropriate remedy.

4 See Sec. 2926 et seq.

1 United States. The Eliza Lines, 199 U. S. 119, 50 L. ed. 115; Dixon v. Anderson, 252 Fed. 694.

Alabama McAllister-Coman Co. v. Matthews, 167 Ala. 361, 140 Am. St. Rep. 43, 52 So. 416.

Connecticut. Lovell v. Hammond Co., 66 Conn. 500, 34 Atl. 511; Trowbridge v. Jefferson Auto Co., 92 Conn. 569, 103 Atl. 843.

Illinois. Watson v. White, 152 111. 364, 38 N. E. 902.

Kansas. Bauman v. McManus, 75 Kan. 106, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1138, 89 Pac 15.

Kentucky. Hobbs v. Ray (Ky.), 96 S. W. 589, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 999.

Massachusetts. Lowe v. Harwood, 139 Mass. 133, 29 N. E. 538.

Michigan. Stahelin v. Sowle, 87 Mich. 124, 49 N. W. 529; Heinlein v. Imperial Life Ins. Co., 101 Mich. 250, 45 Am. St. Rep. 409, 25 L. R. A. 627, 50 N. W. 615.

Minnesota. McGuire v. J. Neils Lumber Co., 97 Minn. 293, 107 N. W. 130.

Montana. McCaull-Dinsmort Co. v. Jackson, - Mont. - , 189 Pac. 771.

New Jersey. O'Neill v. Supreme Council, 70 N. J. L. 410, 57 Atl. 463; Holt v. United Security Life Ins. & Trust Co., 74 N. J. L. 795, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 100, 67 Atl. 118; Holt v. United Security Life Ins. & Trust Co., 76 N. J. L. 585, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 691, 72 Atl. 381.

New York. Shaw v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 286.

North Dakota. Hart-Parr Co. v. Fin-ley, 31 N. D. 130, L R. A. 1915E, 851, 153 N. W. 137 [overruling, Stanford v. McGill, 6 N. D. 536, .38 L. R. A. 760, 72 N. W. 9381.

Ohio. George Wiedemann Brewing Co. v. Maxwell, 78 O. S. 54, 84 N. E. 595.

Oregon. Longfellow v. Huffman, 49 Or. 486, 90 Pac. 907.

Pennsylvania. Hampton v. Specken-agle, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 212, 11 Am. Dec. 704; Durham v. Wick, 210 Pa. St. 128, 105 Am. St. Rep. 789, 59 AtL 824.

Texas. Moore v. Jenkins, - Tex. - , 211 S. W. 975.

Vermont. Ellis' Administrator v. Durkee, 79 Vt. 341, 65 Atl. 94.