Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-82-What-constitutes-breach-a-Substantial-performance-sufficient.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:45:56+00:00

Document:
A condition that no beer be sold on the premises except that made by a certain brewery was held to be invalid as in restraint of trade in Ruhland v. King, 154 Wis. 545, 143 N. W. 681. That a covenant of that character is valid, see Wilson v. Hart, L. R. 1 Ch. 463; Celli & Del Papa v. Galveston Brewing Co., - Tex. Civ. App. -, 186 S. W. 278.
73. Langley v. Chapin, 134 Mass. 82; Hammond v. Port Royal & A. Ry. Co., 15 S. C. 10. See citations ante, note 70.
74. 2 Jarman, Wills, 500; Lewis v. Lewis, 76 Conn. 586, 57 Atl. 735; Harrison v. Harrinson, 105 Ga. 517, 70 Am. St. Rep. 60, 31 S. E. 455; Lindsey v. Lindsey, 45 Ind. 552; Marston v. Marston, 47 Me. 495; Hart v. Chesley, 18 N. H. 373; Casper v. Walker, 33 N. J. Eq. 35, note; Haynie v. Bennett, 22 S. D. 65, 115 N. W. 515; Harrison v. Foote, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 576, 30 S. W. 838; Dunne v. Dunne, 7 D. M. & G. 207; Re Moir, 25 Ch.
Div. 605. Contra, Pardue v. Giv-ens, 54 N. C. 306.
A condition requiring the devisee to live in a particular town has been held to be invalid as being merely the result of caprice (Newkerk v. Newkerk, 2 Caines [N. Y.] 345). And a similar decision has been made when compliance with the condition involved a probable separation of husband and wife (Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, L. R. 12 Eq. 604). But that a devise may be conditioned on the devisee's residence in the county, see Reeves v. Craig, 60 N. C. 208, 209.
75. 1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 138; Rose v. Haw-ley, 118 N. Y. 502, 23 N. E. 904; Wilson v. Galt, 18 111. 431; Morrill v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 96 Mo. 174; Irvine v. Irvine, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 827, 15 S. W. 511. A merely colorable performance is insufficient. Ritchie v. Kansas, N. & D. Ry. Co., 55 Kan. 36, 39 Pac. 718; Hickox v. Chicago & C. S. Ry. Co., 78 Mich. 615, 44 N. W. 143.
76. Broadway v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 290; French v. Inhabitants of Qnincy, 3 Allen (Mass.) 9; Chapin v. School District No. Two, 35 N. H. 445; Mc-Kelway v. Seymour, 29 N. J. L. 321; McKissick v. Pickle, 16 Pa. St. 140. See Osgood v. Abbott, 58 Me. 73; Rowe v. City of Minneapolis, 49 Minn. 148. 51 N. W. 907; Mills v. Evansville Seminary, 58 Wis. 135, 15 N. W. 133.
77. Marks v. Marks, 10 Mod. 419; Vermont v. Society for Propagation of Gospel, 2 Paine, 545, Fed. Cas. No. 16,920; Wilson v. Wilson, 38 Me. 18; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Covington, 2 Bush. (Ky.) 526.
78. Bonniwell v. Madison, 107 Iowa, 85, 77 N. W. 530; Rose v. Hawley, 141 N. Y. 366, 36 N. E. 335; Fowler v. Coates, 201 N. Y. 257, 94 N. E. 997; Central Christian Church v. Lennon, 59 Wash. 425, 109 Pac. 1027.
79. Ante Sec. 81(b) .
80. See Fowler v. Coates, 201 N. Y. 257, 94 N. E. 997; Reed v. Hatch, 55 N. H. 327; Haynie v. Bennett, 22 S. D. 65, 115 N. W. 515.
81. Finlay v. King's Lessee, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 346, 374, 7 L. Ed. 701.
495; Allen v. Howe, 105 Mass. 241; Trustees of Union College v. New York, 173 N. Y. 38, 93 Am. St. Rep. 569, 65 N. E. 853; Law-rey v. Hanna, 59 Ore. 60, 115 Pac. 975; Pierce v. Brown University, 21 R. I. 392, 43 Atl. 878; Adams v. Ore Knob Copper Co., 7 Fed. 634, 4 Hughes 589. That delay in performance was excused by the fact of war, see Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 54 Miss. 200.
As to the lapse of reasonable time, as starting the running of the limitation statute, see Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cook, 39 C. C. A. 86, 98 Fed. 281.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.