In a contract for the construction of a building, covenants on the part of the owner which, either by their express terms, or from the nature of the respective covenants, must be performed before the contractor can perform the covenants on his part, are precedent covenants.1 A covenant on the part of the owner to deliver possession of the premises to the contractor;2 or his covenant to do certain preliminary work;3 or his covenant to furnish plans;4 or his covenant to furnish material which the contractor is to use in the performance of the contract,5 are all precedent covenants, the breach of which will discharge the contractor from performance of covenants on his part to be performed. A covenant to furnish pipe for use in putting in a well is precedent to a covenant to use such pipe in the construction of the well.6 A covenant on the part of the property owner to give bond for payment of the purchase price is precedent to his right to demand performance on the part of the contractor.7 Failure on the part of the owner to pay the contract price or the instalments thereof when due by the terms of the contract, is breach on his part;8 and if, by the terms of the contract, such

23 Bayshore Development Co. v. Bon-foey, - Fla. -, L. R. A. 1918D, 880, 78 So. 507.

24 Foeller v. Heintz, 137 Wis. 160, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 327, 118 N. W. 543.

25 Genrow v. Flynn, 166 Mich. 564, 85 L. R. A. (N.S.) 960, 131 N. W. 1115: Cooper v. Stronge & Warner Co., Ill Minn. 177, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1011, 126 N. W. 541; Kennedy v. Meilicke Calculator Co., 00 Wash. 228, 155 Pac. 1043.

26 Kennedy v. Meilicke Calculator Co., 90 Wash. 238, 155 Pac. 1043.

27 Cooper v. Stronge & Warner Co., Ill Minn. 177, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1011, 126 N. W. 541.

28 Genrow v. Flynn, 166 Mich. 564, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 960, 131 N. W. 1115.

29 Genrow v. Flynn, 166 Mich. 564, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 960, 131 N. W. 1115.

1 United States. King Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis, 43 Fed. 768, 10 L. R. A. 826 [appeal dismissed on motion of plaintiff in error, St. Louis v. Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Co., 140 U. S. 769, 37 L. ed. 960].

Alabama. Hardaway-Wright Co. v Bradley, 163 Ala. 596. 51 So. 21.

California. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 149 Cal. 60, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1171, 85 Pac. 929.

Illinois. Vermont St. M. E. Church v. Brose, 104 Ill. 206.

Kentucky. Williams v. Yates (Ky.), 113 S. W. 503; Pittsburgh Filter Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 176 Ky. 554, 196 S. W. 160.

Massachusetts. Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492, 84 N. E. 04.

Montana. Starr v. Gregory Consolidated Mining Co., 0 Mont. 485, 13 Pac. 195.

New York. Gutmann v. Crouch, 134 N. Y. 585, 31 N. E. 275.

Oregon. Vanderhoof v. Shell, 42 Or. 578, 72 Pac. 126.

Virginia. Welch v. McDonald, 85 Va. 500, 8 S. E. 711; Taylor v. Netherwood, 91 Va. 88, 20 S. E. 888; Atlantic & Danville Ry. v. Delaware Construction Co., 98 Va. 503, 37 S. E. 13.

2 Atlantic & Danville Ry. v. Delaware Construction Co., 98 Va. 503, 37 S. E. 13.

3 United States. King Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis, 43 Fed. 768, 10 L. R. A. 826 [appeal dismissed on motion of plaintiff in error, St. Louis v. Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Co., 149 U. S. 769, 37 L. ed. 960].

Alabama. Hardaway-Wright Co. v. Bradley, 163 Ala. 596, 51 So. 21.

Kentucky. Pittsburgh Filter Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 176 Ky. 554, 196 S. W. 150.

New York. Gutmann v. Crouch, 134 N. Y. 585, 31 N. E. 275.

Oregon. Vanderhoof v. Shell, 42 Or. 578, 72 Pac. 126.

See also, Guerini Stone Co. v. Carlin Construction Co., 240 U. S. 264, 60 L.

ed. 636, and Miller v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 276.

4 Welch v. McDonald, 85 Va. 500, 8 S. E. 711.

5 California. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 149 Cal. 60, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1171, 85 Pac. 929.

Illinois. Vermont St. M. E. Church v. Brose, 104 Ill. 206.

Indiana. Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Brennan, 174 Ind. 1, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 85, 87 N. E. 215, 90 N. E. 65, 91 N. E. 503.

Indian Territory. Degnan v. Now-lin, 5 Ind. T. 312, 82 S. W. 758.

Kentucky. Seventh St. Planing Mill Co. v. Schaefer (Ky.), 99 S. W. 341; Williams v. Yates (Ky.), 113 S. W. 503.

Montana. Starr v. Gregory Consolidated Mining Co., 6 Mont. 485, 13 Pac. 195.

Virginia. Taylor v. Netherwood, 91 Va. 88, 20 S. E. 888.

Wisconsin. Olson v. Viroqua, 121 Wis. 571, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1039, 99 N. W. 326.

6 Olson v. Viroqua, 121 Wis. 571, 99 N. W. 326.

7 Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492, 84 N. E. 94.

8 Shulte v. Hennessy, 40 Ia. 352; Harris's Assignee v. Gardner (Ky.), 68 S. W. 8; Camp v. Treanor, 142 N. Y. 478, 37 N. E. 463.

payment is to be made before the contract is performed in whole by the contractor, such default is treated, in many jurisdictions,9 as a breach of a precedent covenant which will operate as a discharge of the contractor from the duty on his part to perform further.

In the absence of an express provision for payment by the owner before the contractor has performed on his part, performance by the contractor of a substantial character at least,10 is precedent to the right of the contractor to enforce the covenant on the part of the owner for the payment of the contract price.11 Under a contract which provides for issuing a warrant and an assessment attached thereto when a contract for grading a street is completed, completion of such contract is precedent to the issuing of such warrant.12 Even if provision for payment in instalments is made, substantial performance of that part of the work on the completion of which payment of a given instalment is due, is a covenant precedent to the right of the contractor to recover such instalment.13 If a contract for installing an hydraulic elevator provides that the elevator shall be so constructed that the water pressure will not vary more than a certain amount per square inch when the elevator stops, and if it also contains a provision to the effect that the owner of the building shall obtain the consent of the city for the use of city water for the proper operation of such elevator, the installation of an elevator which will not cause a variance in the water pressure in excess of the amount agreed upon, is precedent to the right of the contractor to recover payment from the property owner; and a provision of such covenant discharges the property owner from his duty to furnish water, especially if the consent of the city to the use of city water is conditioned upon the installation of an elevator which will not cause a variance in water pressure in excess of the amount agreed upon between the property owner and the contractor.14 If the contractor has covenanted to give a bond for the performance of the contract on his part, such covenant is precedent to his right to continue performance and to recover the contract price;15 and his offer to begin work without giving bond can not put the adversary party in default.16

9 See Sec. S 3011 et seq.

10 See Sec. 2784.

11 United States. Dermott v. Jones, 64 U. S. (23 How.) 220, 16 L. ed. 442.

Arkansas. Friedman v. Schleuter, 105 Ark. 580, 151 S. W. 696.

Iowa. Schillinger v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co., 145 Ia. 750, 122 N. W. 961 [affirming, 116 N. W. 132].

New York. Stewart v. Newbury, 220 N. Y. 379, 2 A. L. R. 519, 115 N. E. 984.

Wisconsin. Pormann v. Walsh, 97 Wis. 356, 65 Am. St. Rep. 125, 72 N. W, 881 (express agreement to this effect).

12 Connolly v. San Francisco (Cal.), 33 Pac. 1109.

13 Schillinger v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co., 145 Ia. 750, 122 N. W. 961 [affirming, 116 N. W. 132].

14 J. W. Reedy Elevator Mfg. Co. v. Peck, 149 Mich. 657, 113 N. W. 300.

A provision in a building contract, that final payment shall be made upon satisfactory proof that alt liens against the building have been discharged, makes payment of such liens a condition precedent to the recovery of final payment.17 A contract for payment of liens as a precedent covenant is substantially performed, however, if the time within which liens upon the property can be filed has elapsed and no liens have been filed.18 It has been held that if the lien is liquidated the contractor may enforce payment of the difference between the amount due him and the amount of such lien, leaving the owner to pay such lien.19