No recovery can be had upon a contract by a party who has not performed or tendered performance of precedent covenants on his part to be performed against the adversary party who is in default for performance of a subsequent covenant.1 While language has been used which seems to indicate that the party who is bound to perform the precedent covenant need only show that he is ready and willing to perform,2 this language is used of a situation in which he was actually attempting to perform although he was in default as to time.3 The party who is in default for performance of a precedent covenant can not recover damages from the adversary party for his default in performance of subsequent covenants.4 He can not treat such breach of a subsequent covenant as a ground for discharge.5 A building contractor who has failed of substantial performance can not treat the subsequent refusal of the owner to pay an instalment thereafter due as discharging him from liability on the contract.6

3 Famous Players Film Co. v. Salomon, - N. H. -, 106 AtL 282.

4 Goff v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co., 9 Wash. 386, 37 Pac. 418.

5 Leeper Bros. Lumber Co. v. Gunter, - Okla. -, 160 Pac. 606.

6 Morris v. Davis, 83 Va. 297, 8 S. E. 247.

7 Temple v. Pennell, 123 Ia. 729, 99 N. W. 567.

8 Bank v. Sturdee, 32 N. B. 398; Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S. 590, 32 L. ed. 563.

9 Judson University v. Kinkaid, 50 Kan. 369, 31 Pac. 1074.

1 England. Bank v. Trading Co. [1894], A. C. 266; Abrahams v. Campbell [1911], 1 Scots Law Times 2, 4.

United States. Loud v. Water Co., 153 U. S. 564, 38 L. ed. 822; Hull, etc., Co. v. Coke Co., 113 Fed. 256.

Alabama. Whitley v. Murray, 34 Ala. 155; Aarnes v. Windham, 137 Ala. 513, 34 So. 816.

Arkansas. Fletcher v. Verser, 79 Ark. 271, 116 Am. St. Rep. 76, 96 8. W. 384.

California. Hill v. Grigsby, 35 Cal. 656; Cameron v. Burnham, 146 Cal. 680, 80 Pac. 929.

Florida. Thomson v. Kyle, 39 Fla. 582, 63 Am. St. Rep. 193, 23 So. 12.

Illinois. Angle v. Hanna, 22 Ill. 429, 74 Am. Dec. 161; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. v. Richards, 152 Ill. 59, 30 L. R. A. 33, 38 N. E. 773; Oliver v. Sattler, 233 Ill. 536, 84 N. E. 652; Van Sicklen v. Ballard, 97 Ill. App. 640.

Indiana. Vinton v. Baldwin, 88 Ind. 104, 45 Am. Rep. 447.

Iowa. White v. Day, 56 Ia. 248, 9 N. W. 210; Temple v. Pennell, 123 Ia. 729, 99 N. W. 567.

Kansas. Hurst v. Altamont Mfg. Co., 73 Kan. 422, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 928, 85 Pac. 551.

Louisiana. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co. v. Athens Lumber Co., 134 La. 788, L. R. A. 1015B, 856, 64 So. 714.

Massachusetts. Olmstead v. Beale, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 528; Lowe v. Har-wood, 139 Mass. 133, 29 N. E. 538; Wiley v. Athol, 150 Mass. 426, 6 L. R. A. 342, 23 N. E. 311; National Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth, 183 Mass. 89, 66 N. E. 639; Cook v. Sawyer, 188 Mass. 163, 74 N. E. 356; Neal v. Jefferson, 212 Mass. 517, 99 N. E. 334; Bryne v. Dorey, 221 Mass. 399, 109 N. E. 146.

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

Missouri Aaron v. Moore, 34 Mo. 79.

Montana. Franklin v. Shultz, 23 Mont. 165, 57 Pac. 1037.

Nevada. Bradley v. Nevada-California-Oregon Ry., 42 Nev. 411, 178 Pac. 906.

New York. Cunningham v. Jones, 20 N. Y. 486; Bonesteel v. New York, 22 N. Y. 162; Cornell v. Cornell, 96 N. Y. 108; Gause v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 196 N. Y. 134, 89 N. E. 476; Cream of Wheat Co. v. Arthur H. Crist Co., 222 N. Y. 487, 1 A. L. R. 150, 119 N. E: 74.

North Dakota. Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette, 30 N. D. 143, L. R. A. 1916E, 932, 152 N. W. 359.

Ohio. Lowry v. Barrelli, 21 O. S. 324; Gilbert v. Port, 28 O. S. 276; Thomas v. Matthews, 94 O. S. 32, L. R. A. 1917A, 1068, 113 N. E. 669.

Oklahoma. Meek v. Daugherty, 21 Okla. 859, 97 Pac. 557.

Oregon. Hinderliter v. McDonald, 84 Or. 251, 164 Pac. 378.

Utah. William B. Hughes Produce Co. v. Pulley, 47 Utah 544, L. R. A. 1916D, 728, 155 Pac. 337.

Vermont. Lyndon Granite Co. v. Farrar, 53 Vt. 585.

Washington. R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. McNeeley, 58 Wash. 223, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 108 Pac. 621.

Wisconsin. Williams v. Thrall, 101 Wis. 337, 76 N. W. 599.

2 Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. Seymour, 91 U. S. 646, 23 L. ed. 341.

3 This is the rule in concurrent covenants, except that notice and request for performance by the adversary party are necessary. See Sec. 2970.

4 Alabama. Griffin v. Machine Co., 135 Ala. 490, 33 So. 177.

Performance of a precedent covenant is necessary to the enforcement of covenants subsequent thereto.7 The party who is bound to perform the subsequent covenant may maintain an action against the adversary party for default in performance of his precedent covenant, although the time for the performance of the subsequent covenant has not yet arrived.8 It is not necessary that he should allege or prove that he was ready and willing to perform.9

Missouri. Tufts v. Sams, 47 Mo. App. 487.

Nebraska. Hale v. Sheehan, 52 Neb. 184, 71 N. W. 1019.

New York. Lake v. McElfatrick, 139 N. Y. 349, 34 N. E. 922.

Washington. Ingram v. Mining Co., 25 Wash. 318, 65 Pac. 549.

5 Georgia. Barrett v. Verdery, 93 Ga. 526, 21 S. E. 64.

Illinois. Myers v. Gross, 59 Ill. 436.

Iowa. Coldren v. Clark, 93 Ia. 352, 61 N. W. 1045.

Minnesota. Mason v. Edw. Thompson Co., 94 Minn. 472, 103 N. W. 507.

New York. Graf v. Cunningham, 109 N. Y. 369, 16 N. E. 551; Wright v. Reusens, 133 N. Y. 298, 31 N. E. 215.

Pennsylvania. Hatton v. Johnson, 83 Pa. St. 219.

Washington. Reddish v. Smith, 10 Wash. 178, 45 Am. St. Rep. 781, 38 Pac. 1003.

6 Golden Gate Lumber Co. v. Sahr-bacher, 105 Cal. 114, 38 Pac. 635.

7 England. Measures Brothers, Ltd. v. Measures [1910], 2 Ch. 248.

United States. Harriman National Bank v. Seldomridge, 249 U. S. 1, -L. ed. -; National Surety Co. v. Long, 125 Fed. 887; Development Co. v. King, 161 Fed. 91, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 812.

Florida. Marshall v. Bumby, 25 Fla. 619; 6 So. 480; Southern Colonization Co. v. Derfler, 73 Fla. 924, L. R. A. 1917F, 744, 75 So. 790.

Kentucky. Thomas v. Houston, Stan-wood & Gamble Co., 146 Ky. 156, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 950, 142 S. W. 214.

Louisiana. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co. v. Athens Lumber Co., 134 La. 788, L. R. A. 1915B, 856, 64 So. 714.

Massachusetts. Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492, 84 N. E. 94; Bryne v. Dorey, 221 Mass. 399, 109 N. E. 146.

Minnesota. Wasser v. Western Land Securities Co., 97 Minn. 460, 107 N. W. 160.

Nevada. Bradley v. Nevada-California-Oregon Ry., 42 Nev. 411, 178 Pac. 906.

North Dakota. McGregor v. Harm, 19 N. D. 599, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 649, 125 N. W. 885.

Ohio. Lowry v. Barelli, 21 O. S. 324; Koppitz-Melchers Brewing Co. v. Schultz, 68 O. S. 407, 67 N. E. 719; Petersburg Fire Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co., 89 O. S. 365, L. R. A. 1915B, 536, 106 N. E. 33; Thomas v. Matthews, 94 O. S. 32, L. R. A. 1917A, 1068, 113 N. E. 669.

Utah. William B. Hughes Produce Co. v. Pulley, 47 Utah 544, L. R. A. 1916D, 728, 155 Pac. 337.

Washington. Toellner v. McGinnis, 65 Wash. 430, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1082, 104 Pac. 641.

8 Hunt v. Tibbetts, 70 Me. 221; Meri-den Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247, 8 Am. Rep. 549.

9 Winfield Lumber Co. v. Partridge, - Ala. -, 80 So. 821.