In an action by the purchaser for non-performance of the agreement, the vendor can require to be furnished with a particular of all matters of fact, (but not of Law,) which the plaintiff means to rely on as constituting nonperformance (b); but, if this be not obtained, the latter may prove any matter amounting to a breach of the agreement; and is not restricted by statements which he may previously have made to the vendor (c).

At Law, time is of the essence of the contract (d); so that the delay of a single day after the time fixed for the delivery of the abstract, or deducing and verifying a marketable title, gives to the purchaser an immediate right of action; nor can time, at Law, be varied or enlarged by word of mouth (e): and where a time is fixed for completion, and the vendor fails to deduce and verify a marketable title before that time, or if, no time being fixed for completion, he deduces a defective title and the contract is rescinded while the title remains defective, his having a good title at the time of trial will be no defence to the action (f): but if no time be fixed for completion, the vendor will be entitled to "a reasonable time" for making out his title (g): and if, in such case, the purchaser do not apply for the title before bringing an action, it is sufficient if the vendor can make a good title at the time of trial; his having had a defective title, at the date of the contract, is immaterial (h).

Particulars of claim.

Time is, at Law, essential.

(w) Sug. 256. (x) See 2 Ball & B. 353. (y) Infra, p. 460. (z) Tanner v. Smith, 4 Jur, 310, Chan.

(a) S. C, Annesley v. Muggridge, 1 Madd. 593.

(b) See Collett v. Thompson, 3 Bos. & P. 246; Roberts v. Rowlands,

3 Mee. & W. 543.

(c) Squire v. Tod, 1 Camp. 293; Sug. 428; but see Todd v. Hoggart, 1 Moo. & Malk. 128.

(d) Berry v. Young, 2 Esp. 640, n.

(e) Marshall v. Lynn, 6 Mee. & W. 109; Stead v. Dawber, 10 Ad. & El. 57.

Lastly, we may here remark, that a Court of Law will consider equitable, as well as legal, objections to the title (i).

Equitable objections to title a defence at Law.

(f) See Dobell v. Hutchinson, 3 Ad. & El. 355; Bartlett v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 259; Roper v. Coombes, 6 B. & Cr. 534; Seaward v. Willock, 5 East, 198.

(g) Sansom v. Rhodes, 8 Sc. 544.

(h) Thomson v. Miles, 1 Esp. 184.

(i) Sug. 532, and cases cited; and see Neeves v. Burrage, 14 Jur. 177, Q.B.