Cited by

Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

where the time of performance was made the essence of a contract, a failure by the vendee to perform within the allotted time operated, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, as a forfeiture of the vendee’s rights, Williams v. Murphy, 21 Minn. 534 ; but that where time was not of the essence of the contract, the vendor could not arbitrarily cut off the rights of the vendee, Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

Walsh v. Kattenburgh, 8 Minn. 99 (127); Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

Walsh v. Kattenburgh, 8 Minn. 99 (127); Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , 101 N.W.

Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

Austin v. Wacks, 30 Minn. 335 , ; O’Connor v. Hughes, 35 Minn. 446 , ; McNamara v. Pengilly, 58 Minn. 353 , *62 ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; 39 Cyc.

Quinn v. Olson, 34 Minn. 422 , ; Mo v. Bettner, 68 Minn. 179 , ; Scheerschmidt v. Smith, 74 Minn. 224 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; Lynch v. Higgins, 154 Minn. 151 , ; Trainer v. Lammers, 161 Minn. 336 , .

O’Connor v. Hughes, 35 Minn. 446 , ; McNamara v. Pengilly, 58 Minn. 353 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; also annotation in 4 A. L. R. 815, 822.

The problem here is different from that presented in such cases as Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; and Seigne v. Warren Auto Co. 147 Minn. 142 , .

That indefiniteness as to the time of some feature of a contract does not render it invalid, see Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Seigne v. Warren Auto Co. 147 Minn. 142 , .

In Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346 , , the agreement was that the plaintiff should pay “from time to time,” that, is to say, at such times and in such sums as he saw fit, and it was held that there was no uncertainty which was in the way of specific performance, and in Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , , where the price Was to be paid in “annual payments,” it was held, that as far as definiteness and certainty are concerned, there can be no distinction between that expression and the expression “

Schumann v. Mark, 35 Minn. 379 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

See Sylvester v. Holasek, 83 Minn. 362 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , .

We do not regard the authority of Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , as shaken by Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346 , , which sustains a contract providing for payments “from time to time,” nor by Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , , where a contract required “payments annually.” There were other material facts in each case.

The question involved in this action was not presented in Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , , nor in Pierce v. Clarke, 71 Minn. 114 , .

Mo v. Bettner, 68 Minn. 179 , ; Tingue v. Patch, *286 93 Minn. 437 , Keator v. Ferguson, 20 S. D. 473, .

Co., supra; Rose v. Roberts, 9 Minn. 109 (119) ; Flaten v. City of Moorhead, 51 Minn. 518, 521 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; Bates v. Foster, 59 Me. 157 ; Miller v. Hannibal, 90 N. Y. 430 ; Bent v. Rogers, 137 Mass. 192 .

Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; Bartz v. Paff, 95 Wis.