A contract for the sale of realty is broken by the failure or inability of the vendor to furnish title, or at least a marketable title, to the realty which he has covenanted to convey, at the time fixed by the terms of the contract for making such conveyance.1

17 See ch LXXXVIII. 18 See Sec. 740.

19 Ledon v. Havemeyer, 121 N. Y. 179, 8 L. R. A. 245, 24 N. E 297

20 Penobscot Lumbering Association v. Bussell, 92 Me. 256, 42 Atl 408.

21 Penobscot Lumbering Association v. Bussell, 92 Me. 250, 42 Atl 408.

22 Smith v. Billings Sugar Co., 37 Mont 128, 15 L. R. A. (N S ) 837, to Pac. 839 (From the construction placed on the contract by the majority of the court, it is quite likely that the manufacturer of sugar had not covenanted to give instructions to the employes of the grower )

1 England. Weston v. Savage, 10 Ch. Div. 736

California. Crim v. Umbsen, 155 Cnl. 697, 132 Am St Rep. 137. 103 Pac. 178.

Idaho. Boyd v Boley, 25 Ma 584, 130 Pac 130

Minnesota. Williams v Gilbert, 120 Minn 200, 130 N. W 502.

Nebraska. Justice v. Button. 80 Neb. 367, 38 L. R A. (NS) 1, 131 N W. 736

If the parties in interest are before the court, and a decree has been rendered barring their claims, such title is marketable as far as such interests are concerned.2 If the parties in interest are not before the court, a decree which attempts to quiet or perfect the title is of no legal effect against the claims of such parties; and if the title was doubtful before such decree was rendered, it remains unmarketable in spite of Such decree.3

If the contract for the sale of realty is executory, it is broken by failure of title as to a material part thereof.4 A contract for the sale of a building is broken if such building projects over a public street or way.5 A contract for the sale of timber land is broken if the vendor has given an outstanding, valid, enforceable option for the sale of timber thereon.6 A material deficiency in the area amounts to a breach of such contract.7

An executory contract for the sale of realty is also broken by the existence of encumbrances thereon in violation of the provisions of the contract.8 If a contract of sale is signed by the vendor alone, and if it does not provide for a covenant against encumbrances, the vendee can not treat such contract as broken by reason of the refusal of the vendor's wife to release her dower in such property.9

Kanaas. Williams v. Bricker, 83 Kan. 53, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 343, 109 Pac. 998.

Minnesota. Howe v. Coatea, 97 Minn. 385, 4 L. R A. (N.S.) 1170, 107 N. W 397.

Ohio. Lewis v. White, 10 O. S. 444.

Oklahoma. Martin v. Spaulding, 40 Okla 191. 137 Pac 882.

Pennsylvania. Rugg v. Midland Realty Co, 261 pa St. 453, 104 AtL 685

Wisconsin. Arentsen v. Moreland, 122 Wis 167. 106 Am. St. Rep. 951, 65 L. R A 973. 99 N W. 790.

2 Buchan v. German-American Land Co., 180 la 911, L. R A. 1918A, 84, 164 N W 119.

3 Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 4 L. R A (NS ) 1170, 107 N. W. 397.

4 England. Jacobs v. Revell [1900], 2 Ch 858.

United States. Ankeny v. Clark, 148 U S. 345, 37 L ed. 475.

Iowa. Stonebrook v. Wisner, 171 la. 109, L R. A. 1915E, 834, 153 N. W. 351.

Hew Jersey. Reutler v. Ramain, 91 N. J. L. 262, 102 Atl. 351.

New York. Acme Realty Co. v. Schinasi, 215 N. Y. 495, L. R. A. 1916A, 1176, 109 N. E. 577.

Ohio. Hayes v. Skidmore, 27 O. S 331.

Oklahoma. Groves v. Stouder, - Okla. - , 161 Pac. 239.

Vermont. Brown v. Aitken, 88 Vt. 148, 92 Atl. 22.

Wisconsin. Arentsen v. Moreland, 122 Wis. 167, 106 Am. St. Rep. 951, 65 L. R. A. 973, 99 N. W. 790.

5 Stonebrook v. Wisner, 171. la. 109, L. R. A. 1915E, 834, 153 N. W. 351; Acme Realty Co. v. Schinasi, 215 N. Y. 495, L. R. A. 1916A, 1176, 109 N. E. 577.

6 Arentsen v. Moreland, 122 Wis. 167, 106 Am. St. Rep. 951, 65 L. R. A. 973, 99 N. W. 790.

7 Caughron v. Stineapring, 132 Tenn. 636, L. R. A. 1916C, 403, 179 S. W. 152.

8 England. In re Haedicke [19011, 2 Ch. 666.

California. Tandy v. Waesch, 154 Cal. 108, 97 Pac 69.

The omission or refusal of the vendor to convey in accordance with the terms of the contract is a breach thereof.10 Whether a vendor is liable on a contract by which he has agreed to convey his homestead, but in which contract his wife is not joined, is a question upon which there is a divergence of authority; some courts holding that the vendor is liable because of his failure to perform,11 while other courts hold that he is not liable, since the statutory and constitutional provisions with reference to a homestead are intended to prevent the sale thereof unless husband and wife join therein.12

If the vendee fails to pay for the realty at the time fixed by the provisions of the contract, if time is of the essence of such con-tract,13 especially if he admits his inability to pay,14 or if the contract contains a forfeiture clause,15 or if the vendee fails to pay in a reasonable time, especially if the vendor has given him reasonable notice requiring performance on his part,16 such conduct of the vendee amounts to a breach. A contract by which the purchaser of certain property agrees to deposit the proceeds thereof in a certain bank to the credit of the vendor, as part payment of the purchase price, is broken by his act in depositing such proceeds in another bank to his own credit.17

Iowa. Tague v. McColm, 145 la. 179, 123 N. W. 900.

Minnesota. Johnson v. Herbst, 140 Minn. 147, 167 N. W. 356.

Missouri. Aiple-Henunelmann Real Estate Co. v. Spelbrink, 211 Mo. 671, 111 8. W. 480.

9 People's Savings Bank Co. v. Faria-ette, 68 O. S. 450, 67 N. E. 896.

10 Iowa. Carroll v. Mundy, - la. - , 4 A. L R. 811, 170 N. W. 790.

Michigan. Droppers v. Marshall, 203 Mich. 173, 4 A. L R. 1206, 168 N. W. 1001.

Minnesota. Schmidt v. Scandinavian Canadian Land Co., 136 Minn. 14, 161 N. W. 218.

New Jersey. Zimmerman v. Branyan, 62 N. J. L. 478, 41 Atl. 689.

Wisconsin. Isaacs v. Bardon, 114 Wis. 142, 89 N. W. 913.

11 Clark v. Bird, 158 Ala. 278, 132 Am. St. Rep. 25, 48 So. 359 (obiter); Droppers v. Marshall, 203 Mich. 173, 4 A. L. R. 1266, 168 N. W. 1001.

12 Wheelock v. Countryman, 133 Ia. 289, 110 N. W. 598; Lichty v. Benle, 75 Neb. 770, 106 N. W. 1018; Silander v. Gronna, 15 N. D. 552, 125 Am. St. Rep. 616, 108 N. W. 544.

13 United States. Coughran v. Big low, 164 U. S. 301, 41 L. ed. 442 [affirming, Coughran v. Bigelow, 9 Utah 260,34 Pac. 51].

California. Smith v. Post, 167 Cal. CO, 138 Pac 705.

Georgia. Lytle v. Scottish-American Mortgage Co., 122 Ga. 458, 50 S. E. 402.

Ohio. Hutcheson v. McNutt, 1 Ohio 14. (Purchaser not bound to make payment at all; title to pass if payment made )

Oklahoma. Hurley v. Anicker, 51 Okla. 97, L R. A. 1918B, 538, 151 Pac. 593.

Washington. Benham v. Columbia Canal Co., 74 Wash 110, 132 Pac. 884; Converse v. La Barge, 92 Wash. 282, 158 Pac. 958.

For a case in which time is not of the essence, see Smith v. Berkau, 123 Ark 90, 184 S W. 429.

14 Smith v. Post, 167 Cal. 69, 138 Pac. 705.

15 Whiteman v Perkins, 56 Neb. 181, 76 N. W. 547; 258 Pa. St 362, 101 Atl. 1051; Converse v. La Barge, 92 Wash. 282, 158 Pac. 958.