Strictly speaking, conditions concurrent can only exist in the eyes of the law. It is, of course, impossible that two conditions shall be fulfilled in the same time, and yet each precede the other. In practice what is meant by this class of condition, is that both parties must be ready to fulfill their promises at the same time, and that neither can demand the fulfillment of the promise of the other until he is prepared to fulfill his own. Such conditions are most frequently found in the case of contracts of sale where the delivery of the property and the payment of the price is to take place simultaneously.4 In Goodisson vs. Nunn,5 the Court said; 'This case is extremely clear, whether considered on principles of strict law or of common justice. The plaintiff engaged to sell an estate to the defendant, in consideration of which the defendant undertook to pay £210; and if he did not carry the contract into execution, he was to pay £21. And now, not having conveyed his estate, or offered to do so, or taken any one step towards it, the plaintiff has brought this action for the penalty. Suppose the purchase-money of an estate was £40,000, it would be absurd to say that the purchaser might enforce a conveyance without payment, and compel the seller to have recourse to him, who perhaps might be an insolvent person. The old cases cited by the plaintiff's counsel have been accurately stated; but the determinations in them outrage common sense. I admit the principle on which they profess to go; but I think that the judges misapplied that principle. It is admitted in them all that where they are dependent covenants no action will he by one party, unless he may have performed his covenant. Then the question is whether these are or are not dependent covenants? I think they are, the one is to depend on the other; when the one party conveyed his estate, he was to receive the purchase-money; and when the other parted with his money, he was to receive the estate. They were reciprocal acts to be performed by each other at the same time."

3 Vanhorne vs. Forrance, 2 Fal., 304, 317; Bruce vs. Snow, 20 N. H., 484.

4 Smith vs. Lewis, 26 Conn., 110; Adams vs. O'Conner, 100 Maes.

515; Swan vs. Drury, 22 Pick. (Mass.), 485; Clark vs. Weiss, 87 I11., 438. 5 4 Term Reports, 761.