Where workmen refuse to perform a con tract for their services and their employer makes a new contract with them at a greater price, he is bound to perform such new con tract; Domenico v. Packers' Ass'n, 112 Fed. 554.
The non-performance of a building con tract is not excused by inevitable accident; Haynes & Co. v. Second .B. Ch'urch, 88 Mo.
285, 57 Am. Rep. 413; School District No. 1 v. Dauchy, 25 Conn. 530, 68 Am. Dec. 371; Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 17 L. Ed. 762; Tompkins v. Dudley, 25 N. Y. 272, 82 Am. Dec. 349; nor by the acceptance of the buildings when not finished in due time; Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. (U. S.) 220, 16 L. Ed. 442; but it may be by acts of the other party which delay completion, even if ac quiesced in by the contractor; Mansfield v. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 205, 6 N. E. 386. The pre vention of performance by the destruction of a building before completion, if the con tract is entire, will prevent recovery for any part ; L. R. 2 C. P. 651; so where the house was completed all but the painting; Annis v. Saugy (R. 1.) 74 Atl. 81; but where there is a provision for payment from time to time, it is otherwise; 4 M. & W. 699. There may he waiver of strict performance as to time; Fallon v. Lawler, 102 N. Y. 228, 6 N. E. 392 ; and a recovery for work actually done; Knotts v. Stearns, 91 U. S. 640, 23 L. Ed. 252; a vendor who has waived perform ance at the time specified cannot rescind without reasonable notice to the vendee; Harris v. Troup, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 423; Cum mings v. Rogers, 36 Minn. 317, 30 N. W. 892 ; Wallace v. Pidge, 4 Mich. 573. Nothing can be recovered for part performance of a con tract unless full performance was waived or prevented ; Catlin v. Tobias, 26 N. Y. 217, 84 Am. Dec. 183; Jennings v. Lyons, 39 Wis. 553, 20 Am. Rep. 57; Holden Steam Mill Co. v. Westervelt, 67 Me. 449; but see Avery v. Willson, 81 N. Y. 341, 37 Am. Rep. 503. See 2 Benj. Sales § 1032.
A builder may recover upon an entire con tract which he has substantially performed less damages for actual incompleteness; Foeller v. Heintz, 137 Wis. 169, 118 N. W. 543, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327; Philip Hiss Co. v. Pitcairn, 107 Fed. 425; Elizabeth v. Fitz gerald, 114 Fed. 547, 52 C. C. A. 321; mond-Dunne Co. v. Friedman-Doscher Co., 162 N. Y. 486, 56 N. E. 995 ; McCartan v.
Trenton, 57 N. J. Eq. 571, 41 Atl. 830. Minor defects and omissions, if not wilful, do not prevent a recovery for substantial perform ance; Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, Pac. 723; and recovery is even allowed in cases where payment is conditioned on. the production of an architect's certificate which the architect has refused because be is dis satisfied with the work; Wicker v. Messing-1 er, 12 Ohio C. D. 425; but one who invokes that doctrine must himself have faithfully endeavored to perform ; Gillespie Tool Co. v. Wilson, 123 Pa. 19, 16 Atl. 36. See Boet tler v. Tendick, 73 Tex. 488, 11 S. W. 497, 5 L. R. A. 270; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357, 45 N. W. 845, 9 L. R. A. 52.
Whether a contract is entire or severable with respect to its performance depends generally upon the consideration, and not the subject matter ; Rugg v. Moore, 110 Pa.
236, 1 Atl. 320 ; if the latter is apportioned, either expressly or impliedly, the contract is severable; Morgan v. McKee, 77 Pa. 228 ; so also where it prbvides for the perform ance of different things at different times; Barrie v. Earle, 143 Mass. 1, 8 N. E. 639, 58 Am. Rep. 126; or where the price is appor tioned to different items to be separately performed; Andrews v. Durant, 11 N. Y. 35, 62 Am. Dec. 55 ; 5 B. & Ald. 942. See Katz v. Bedford, 77 Cal. 319, 19 Pac. 523, 1 L. R. A. 826.
Where no time is fixed for performance, a reasonable time will be presumed to have been intended ; Gruaz v. Le Crone, 45 Ill. App. 624; Peabody v. Bement, 79 Mich. 47, 44 N. W. 416; Russell v. Ormsbee, 10 Vt. 274; 4 Q. B. D. 133; Wheelock v. Tanner, 39 N. Y. 481; Whiting v. Gray, 27 Fla. 482, 8 South. 726, 11 L. R. A. 526. What is a reasonable time will depend upon the cir cumstances of the case ; Greene v. Dingley, 24 Me. 131; L. R. 1 C. P. 385; Cameron v. Wells, 30 Vt. 633; Boyd & Co. v. Gunnison & Co., 14 W. Va. 1; and is a question for the jury; 18 N. Y. L. J. 1809 ; and may be shown by the acts of the parties or by ex pert evidence; Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 75 Fed. 818, 21 C. C. A. 530 ; delivery of goods at six o'clock in the morning after the day fixed for performance is substantial perform ance ; New Jersey Co. v. Wise Co., 55 Misc. 294, 105 N. Y. Supp. 231.