an abstract of the title, if he desires it, and to make the necessary investigation. Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123); Espy v. Anderson, 14 Pa. St. 308. In Alabama it is held to be the duty of the vendor, when required, to furnish to the purchaser an abstract of the title. Wade v. Killough, 5 Stew. and P. 450; Chapman v. Lee, 55 Ala. 616, 623. But these decisions were based on the English Law, and the fact that the different conditions existing here might change the rule was not noted. In Brewer v. Fox, 62 Ill. App. 609, it is said that "a vendor must fur-· nish evidence of his title, which, by usage, is an abstract," but this is contrary to the weight of authority. Where the contract requires the vendor to furnish an abstract, and notice is given where the abstract may be found and inspected, if the vendee does not object on that ground, this will be construed as a compliance with the contract by the vendor. Papin v. Goodrich, 103 Ill. 86.

A contract

Sec. 15. Time of delivering the abstract. for the sale of real estate requiring the furnishing of an abstract implies that it should be furnished sufficiently long before the date of the consummation of the sale and payment of the purchase money for the purchaser to have opportunity to examine it. Jones v. Price, 3 Anstr. 924; Compton v. Bagley, 1 Ch. 319. When parties make a contract for the sale or exchange of lands which provides for the exhibition of an abstract showing title in the proposing parties by a day named, this is a condition precedent to be performed before either party, in the case of an exchange, or the vendor in case of sale, can call upon the other to perform the agreement, and if the abstract is not satisfactory or fails to show the title agreed to be made, the other may elect to consider the contract at an end. Howe v. Hutchison, 105 Ill. 501. If the vendor does not have the abstract ready by the appointed time the purchaser may rescind and recover his deposit. Williams v. Daly, 33 Ill. App. 454; 2 White and Tudor's Leading Cases, 557. When the contract calls for an abstract showing good title by a day certain, the vendor has no right to demand time to furnish an additional abstract if the first is defective. Howe v. Hutchison, 105 Ill. 501; Williams v. Daly, 33 Ill. App.

454. But a purchaser who has given the vendor time to remedy defects in an abstract may not rescind for failure to furnish additional abstracts within a reasonable time without notifying the vendor that he will wait no longer, where he receives the abstracts furnished as if he meant to have them examined. Jackson v. Conlin, 50 Ill. App. 538. Where a vendor agrees to furnish an abstract of title within thirty days from the date of sale, which is not done, and the vendee raises no objection on that ground, and continues to make payments under the contract and otherwise treats it as still in force, he will be deemed to have waived the performance of that condition, and can not obtain a rescission or a recovery of the money advanced by reason of such default. McAlpine v. Reichencker, 56 Kan. 100 (42 Pac. Rep. 339). Where a contract for the sale of real estate provided that an abstract of title should be furnished in a reasonable time, it was held that what was reasonable time depended on the circumstances of the case. The fact that a payment was to be made within thirty-five days from the date of the contract did not necessarily mean that the abstract should be furnished within that time. Jackson v. Conlin, 50 Ill. App. 538.

Sec. 16. Examination of abstract and removal of defects in the title. It is well settled that a purchaser can not be compelled to accept a doubtful or incumbered title, but it devolves upon him to show that the title for which he has contracted is doubtful or insufficient in any way. Patten v. Stewart, 24 Ind. 332; Dwight v. Cutler, 3 Mich. 566 (64 Am. Dec. 105); Daily v. Litchfield, 10 Mich. 29; Moot v. Business Men's Ass'n, 157 N. Y. 201 (52 N. E. Rep. 1); Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123); Espy v. Anderson, 14 Pa. St. 308. Even where the contract requires the vendor to make a "good and unincumbered title," the purchaser is obliged to examine and ascertain whether the title is good and unincumbered. Carr v. Roach, 2 Duer 21. When a contract of sale of real estate specifies no time within which the examination of title is to be made, a reasonable time therefor is implied. Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123); Allen v. Atkinson, 21 Mich. 351. The vendee must

make all his objections to the title within a reasonable time after being furnished the abstract. He cannot make certain objections to the title as shown by the abstract, and thus induce the vendor to spend money in litigation to remove such objections, and then raise other objections which he knows the vendor cannot remove, and then insist upon a rescission of the contract on account of such objections. Stevenson v. Polk, 71 Ia. 278 (32 N. W. Rep. 340). But a waiver of one objection to the title as shown by an abstract, does not absolve the vendor from endeavoring to remove another objection, if his contract requires him to furnish an abstract showing good title. Union Safe Deposit Co. v. Chisholm, 33 Ill. App. 647. Where a contract requires all the objections to the abstract to be made within a certain time, the purchaser must be satisfied with the abstract delivered if he does not discover any defects and object therefor within the limitation. Blackburn v. Smith, 2 Exch. 783; Morley v. Cook, 2 Hare 106. If the vendor has been delinquent in furnishing. the abstract, but the vendee has accepted it when furnished, the vendor can not insist upon the vendee furnishing his objections within the time specified in the contract. Upperton v. Nicholson, L. R. 6 Ch. 436.

An intending purchaser in investigating the title must examine every deed or instrument forming a part of it, especially if recorded, for he is presumed to know every fact disclosed thereby, or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would lead. Moot v. Business Men's Assn., 157 N. Y. 201 (52 N. E. Rep. 1). But where the contract of sale required the vendor to furnish an abstract of title, and provided that if the title should be found to be unmarketable to such an extent as to warrant the purchaser in refusing the same, it was held that in determining the marketability of the title, the purchaser was justified upon relying upon the abstract furnished. If it did not disclose the marketable character of the title, he was not bound to examine further or elsewhere. Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 (40 N. W. Rep. 833); Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533 (23 Pac. Rep. 217). If the vendor at the time fixed. is unable to convey a good title, the vendee may recover back the amount spent by him in investigating the title. Uhl v. Loughran (Supreme Ct.), 2 N. Y. Supp. 190; Hewison v.

Hoffman, (C. Pl.), 4 N. Y. Supp. 621; Wetmore v. Bruce, 118 N. Y. 319 (23 N. E. Rep. 303); Fruhauf v. Bendheim, 6 N. Y. Supp. 264. California has a statute expressly authorizing the recovery of the expense of examining the title, with interest thereon. Civ. Code, § 3306; Turner v. Reynolds, 81 Cal. 214 (22 Pac. Rep. 546). In an action against a vendor to recover the purchase money, or a deposit, because of defects in the title, the plaintiff is limited to such defects as were pointed out to the vendor by him. Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123); 1 Chitty on Contracts, 434; Todd v. Hoggart, M. & M. 128. In the absence of any time fixed in the agreement of sale within which the vendor shall remove defects in, or satisfy objections to, the title, a reasonable time is allowed therefor. Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123); More v. Smedburg, 8 Paige 600.

Sec. 17. Sufficiency of abstract between vendor and vendee. When a contract for the sale of land provides that an abstract of title is to be delivered by the vendor, the only fair interpretation of the contract is that a full abstract of title is to be furnished, which must show on its face a good title in him. Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533 (23 Pac. Rep. 217); Constantine v. East, 8 Ind. App. 291 (35 N. E. Rep. 844); Kane v. Rippey, 22 Or. 296 (23 Pac. Rep. 180); Taylor v. Williams, 2 Colo. App. 559 (31 Pac. Rep. 504); Stevenson v. Polk, 71 Ia. 278, 287 (32 N. W. Rep. 340). Under a contract for an abstract showing a good title, a vendee is entitled to demand that the abstract disclose a marketable title free from incumbrances and defects, and as to which there is no reasonable doubt. Vought v. Williams, 120 N. Y. 253 (24 N. E. Rep. 195; 17 Am. St. Rep. 634; 8 L. R A. 591); Moot v. Business Men's Assn., 157 N. Y. 201 (52 N. E. Rep. 1); Gates v. Parmley, 93 Wis. 294 (66 N. W. Rep. 253). In such a case an abstract which fails to show whether there were judgments against or conveyances by the vendor, is insufficient, Union Safe Dep. Co. v. Chisholm, 33 Ill. App. 647; but an abstract of title furnished by a vendor of land is not insufficient because it fails to show that an acknowledgment taken in another state bore a notarial seal, when the law of such

state provides that official seal shall not be necessary to the validity of the certificate. But even though it were, the letters "L. S." in an abstract of title, following the name of a notary in a certificate of acknowledgment, sufficiently indicate that an official seal was attached to such certificate. Burklen v. Hasterlik, 155 Ill. 423 (40 N. E. Rep. 561). Upon a contract requiring the vendor to furnish an abstract showing good title in him, the vendee may rescind the contract and recover the purchase money, if the abstract so furnished fails to show a legal title. Brown v. Young, 18 Ill. App. 643. An agreement in a contract of sale of real estate that the purchase money should be returned if the title proves defective, is "pointed at incurable defects in the title, and not to such imperfections as are capable of being removed after the agreement is made, and whilst the title is under investigation." Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307 (27 Pac. Rep. 280; 25 Am. St. Rep. 123). Where a party agreed to purchase certain real estate "on delivery of a waranty deed conveying clear title, with abstract," it was held that he could insist upon a delivery of an abstract showing clear title as a condition precedent. That upon default in furnishing such an abstract he could maintain an action for the money paid. That the defendant could not, in such an action, show as a defense that the defects in the title disclosed by the abstract did not in fact exist, or that his title to the premises was complete and perfect. Taylor v. Williams, 2 Col. App. 559, 564 (31 Pac. Rep. 504); Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533 (23 Pac. Rep. 217). The fact that the vendor can show a title by adverse possession does not change the rule. Constantine v. East, 8 Ind. App. 291 (35 N. E. Rep. 844). Where a vendor agrees to furnish his vendee "an abstract of title showing good title and power and authority to sell and convey," the deposit made by the latter to be returned and the contract to be determined in case of failure to show good title, and the abstract furnished showed good title, although in fact it was in dispute, it was held that the vendor could not rescind the contract, but would be obliged to clear the title. Cravener v. Hale, 27 Ill. App.

275. Where the abstract of title showed that the title of record came into" H. P. Hepburn," and there was no deed from him, but the next deed of record was from "H. P. Hopkins," and the