Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/782

 At the close of plaintifs' evidence, the court being of opin- ititi /thàt defendants' hàathe'lrigh't tô feseind the contract, pl^igtiffs elëcted to suffer a rionsuit, witii leave tp move to �take it-.off. :, !v-,.. ;.,.: : ■ �^ 'Samuel DickaoH anà John C. BuUitt, toi the motion. ' AS the contract' exprebly alloWëd Six months fôr'the ship- ment of the whole 5,000 tons, the railure to sbip 1,000 tons in any one month was immaterial. The facts that each ship- ment was to be paid for separatëlj^,' that the timfe of arrivai ■#aB' ûiicçirtain, 'aiid thàt lost shiianentà' were hot' to be re- placed, ail show that the cbniSlràiCt wàs severablô; The raie is tbaf ii.the part to be performed by one party consists of several' andi diatinct itenis, and the, price to be'^aid by the other is apportiofaed to eftehitemi the icontract is sëverable. SiPteuns on Gôrltracts, 29-31;: LttceacoOii Qo. v. Brewer, 66 Pa. Sti.^ 351; Graves vi S<;ott, 80 Pal St. «8; Scott v. Kittari' mng GmlCo. 89 Pa. St. 231 ; note to-saime case, 19 Am. Law Beg. (M. ! Sv) 418 J Morgan v, McKee, 77 Pa. St. 229 ; Perkim vt Hcki:^, 11 Wheat. 23T. If the contract is sëverable under tha m\e oi MrdageJTjCole, 1 Wms. Saund. 320, the covenant is snbstituted for ssaet performance, and the failmre.of theseller to'supply the firstjmonthly. instalmeirfi does not entitle the ^urchaser eo resoind unless sach failuire is apcompanied by other eircumstlances sho^ing 'ail intention to abandon : the (fpi^tract, ; . B^rijamin on Ss\lea,:^i,4:26;, Stoddart -7. Smith, 5 Burn. 355; Tipton v. Feitner,.^0 N, Y. à2^i.Snook v. Pries, 19 Barb. 318 ; Lee v^ Beehe, 13 Hun. 89 ; Johnassokn v. Ypung,, 4 B. & S. .29.6. (116 E. C. L.;) .Simpson v. Crippen, Ijaw ; Eep. 8 Q. B». 14,; Roper v. Johnson, L, E. 8 C. P. Div. 167 ; Freeth v, Burr, L. E. 9 C; P. 208.; Bloomer v, Berntine, ii.K 9.0. P-i^SB; Ex parte CMmers, L. R. 9 C. P. 289; Mor.ganM^, Bain^,Jj.,^. 10 C. P. 15 ; Houck T. Muller, Londo;^ Times,:i)©c, 18, 1880, ,,-. . Re G, McMurtnet^cpntra. .,.■ ,,, �Therul^ adopted in the,English cases cited by plaintifs i^ a departure fr9m the earlier decisions of the English courts, and is i^iconsipti^nt) with other recent English decisions, Johnson v. Johnson, 3 B. & Pull. le2-70; Oxendale v. Weth- ����