Page 2

[At margin: Moon - Kelly Matter Authorities]

See also King vs. Wilson 6 Reav. 126; Heaphy
vs. Hill 2 S & S 29 (1 Eng. Ch.). Watson vs. Reid 1 Russ & (...)
226 (5 Eng Ch); Taylor vs. Brown 2 Beav. 183. Berry v. Armistead
2 Keen (15 Eng Ch). 227.

[Diversity?] where vendor has been in (...) lapse of time (...)
[Instly?] no (...) to (...) performed at his (...).
(...) (...) (...) 426 & n(13).
Miller v. Bean. 3 Paige 4 (...)
(...) v. Taylor. 1 M (...) 395. T s 14 Pet. 172.
(...) v. (...), 9 Johns. 452
[Williams?] v. Lewis, 5 Leigh 686.

Giving notice to perform shut(...) [time?] so that in one case 2 yrs
delay in [fiting?] till (...) , (...) perf. (...) another one to [include?] (...)
intervention of the ct.
(...) (...) (...) 425-6
Hea(...) v. Hill 2 Sims. & (...) (1 Eng. (...))
Watson v. [Rind?], 1 (...) & My. (5 Eng. (...) 236.

(...) tho not of [essence?] of the contract is a circumstance of
(...) & is to be (...) in all its probable effects & (...). Anthony
v. (...), 3 Rand 252 & (...).

A purchase was to be completed 25 (...). Before that day [arrived?] the purchaser
at vendor's inquest, (...) the times to 5 Nov. But the title was not then completed.
(...) that the purchaser might abandon the contract. (Perkins v. Thorold.
2 Sim. N. S. (42 (...) (...)). 5 (...), 1 & n (1).

Contract made 16 Oct. 1840, objections to title discussed to 20 Augt. '41. When (...)
notified vendor that he (...) (...) the contract but finally [allowed?] vendor until 17 Jany "42
to complete the title, & the title no being compl(...) (...) file (...) on a (...). Bill
filed by vendor, 30 August 1843. Hold that the delay from 17 Jany 1842 to 30 Augt. 1843,
(...) sp. (...).

Tendency of cts. in modern cases to restrict its jurisdiction when time has not been
regarded to cases where (...) has been (...) in (...) his (...).
South(...) v. Bish. of Exeter, 6 Hare (31 Eng. Ch),, 218-19 & note [1].
Stewart v. Smith, Id. 222
Taylor v. Longworth, 14 (...) 172
Walker v. Jeffreys, 1 Hare (23 Eng. Ch.) 348, Sir Jno (...)

Circumstances may [prove?] that time was of the essence & the contl. where
the [value?] of the (...) matter is (...), as in the case of (...) of a public house
or (...) (...). (...) v. Till, 1 Russ. (1 Eng. Ch.) 376; Doloret v. Rothschild, 1 (...) (...)
(1 Eng. Ch.) 590.
Good & (...)

Discussion of effect of time in Green v. Covilland 10 Cal. 317 (70 Am. Dec. 730 (...)
139 nots.

In Rogers v. Saunders 16 (...) 107 (33 Am. Dec. 635) 4 (...) (...) to [stocks?] in fluctuating
(...) (...) [essential?]. to also (...) (...) in Hepburn v. [Aula?], 5 Cr. 279