Under a contract for the sale of personalty, in which no specific provision is made as to the order in time of payment and delivery, these acts are concurrent.1 If the seller fails to deliver the goods at the time specified by the contract, if such time is of the essence, or within a reasonable time, if time is not of the essence, such failure is a breach of a concurrent covenant on the part of the seller for which the buyer may treat the contract as discharged.2 No action can be brought on an underwriting certificate by one who is unable to deliver the stock for which the promisor has agreed to pay, at the time specified in the contract or at least within a reasonable time thereafter.3

1 England. Read v. Hutchinson, 3 Campb. 352.

United States. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Ry. v. United States, 231 U. S. 363, 58 L. ed. 269.

Alabama. Lowy v. Rosengrant, 196 Ala. 337, 71 So. 439.

Arkansas. Isbell-Brown Co. v. Stevens Grocer Co., 113 Ark. 17, 175 S. W. 1158.

California. Cole v. Swanston, 1 Cal. 51, 52 Am. Dec. 288; Eames v. Haver, 111 Cal. 401, 43 Pac. 1120.

Connecticut. United Machinery Co. v. Etzel, 80 Conn. 336, 94 Atl. 356.

Iowa. Kuhlman v. Wood, 81 Ia. 128, 46 N. W. 738; Rice v. Appel, 111 Ia. 154, 82 N. W. 1001; Roper v. Wells, 182 Ia. 237, 165 N. W. 385.

Kansas. Fairbanks v. Walker, 76 Kan. 903, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 558, 92 Pac. 1129.

Kentucky. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Machine Co., 167 Ky. 382, 180 S. W. 815.

Maryland. McGratb v. Gegner, 77 Md. 331, 39 Am. St. Rep. 415, 26 Atl. 502.

Massachusetts. Morton v. Clark, 181 Mass. 134, 63 N. E. 400.

Michigan. Lamont v. La Fevre, 96 Mich. 175, 55 N. W. 687; W. A. Mc-Arthur Co. v. Bank, 122 Mich. 223, 81 N. W. 92.

Minnesota. Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. Ill, 22 N. W. 244; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Bargabos, -Minn. - 172 N. W. 882.

Nebraska. Behrends v. Beyschlag, 50 Neb. 304, 60 N. W. 835.

New Jersey. Kelly Construction Co. v. Hackensack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417.

New York. Vandegrift v. Engineering Co., 161 N. Y. 435, 48 L. R. A. 685, 55 N. E. 941.

Pennsylvania. White v. Wolf, 185 Pa. St. 360, 30 Atl. 1011; Frech v. Lew-is, 218 Pa. St. 141, 120 Am. St. Rep. 864, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 948, 67 Atl. 45 (payment waived by vendor).

Rhode Island. Marsh v. Babcock (R. I.), 68 Atl. 475.

Wisconsin. Shores Lumber Co. v. Claney, 102 Wis. 235, 78 N. W. 451; Pratt v. Mfg. Co., 115 Wis. 648, 92 N. W. 368; Fox v. Wilkinson, 133 Wis. 337, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1107, 113 N. W. 660; Stein v. Jasculca, 165 Wis. 317, 162 N. W. 182.

2 Lowy v. Rosengrant, 106 Ala. 337, 71 So. 439; Isbell-Brown Co. v. Stevens Grocer Co., 118 Ark. 17, 175 S. W. 1158; White v. Wolf, 185 Pa. St. 369, 30 Atl. 1011; Marsh v. Babcock (R. I.), 68 Atl. 476.

If the seller attempts to perform by delivering goods which are materially deficient in quantity,4 or in quality,5 or if he attempts to perform by delivering goods the title to which is materially defective in whole or in part,6 the seller has broken a concurrent covenant on his part; and the buyer may treat the contract as discharged by reason of such breach. On the other hand, the duty of the buyer to pay is concurrent with the duty of the seller to deliver in the absence of any agreement for credit; and the failure of the buyer to pay at the time fixed by the contract for performance and on offer by the seller to perform, is breach for which the seller may treat the contract as discharged, and refuse further performance.7 In the absence of a specific provision for payment in instalments upon delivery in instalments, the seller who delivers in instalments can not require the buyer to pay until the entire quantity of goods is delivered.8 This general principle is changed by the provision of the Sale of Goods Act,9 to the effect that delivery of the goods and payment of the purchase price are concurrent, in the absence of some specific agreement, since this must be construed as meaning that payment is concurrent with complete delivery.10

3 Marsh v. Babcock (R. I.), 68 Atl. 475.

4 Kuhlman v. Wood, 81 Ia. 128, 46 N. W. 738.

5 United States. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Ry. v. United States, 231 U. S. 363, 58 L. ed. 269.

Iowa. Roper v. Wells, 182 Ia. 237, 165 N. W. 385.

Kansas. Fairbanks v. Walker, 76 Kan. 903, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 558, 92 Pac. 1129.

Kentucky. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Machine Co., 167 Ky. 382, 180 S. W. 815.

Wisconsin. Fox v. Wilkinson, 133 Wis. 337, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1107, 113 N. W. 669; Stein v. Jasculca, 165 Wis. 317, 162 N. W. 182.

6 Shores Lumber Co. v. Claney, 102 Wis. 235, 78 N. W. 451.

7 Read v. Hutchinson, 3 Campb. 352; United Machinery Co. v. Etzel, 89 Conn. 336, 94 Atl. 356; McGrath v. Gegner, 77 Md. 331, 39 Am. St. Rep. 415, 26 Atl. 502; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Bargabos, - Minn. -, 172 N. W. 882 (payment by check which is not honored).

8 Kelly Construction Co. v. Hacken-sack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417.

9 See Sec. 42, Sale of Goods Act.

10 Kelly Construction Co. v. Hacken-sack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417.