Bennett

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and an order refusing a new trial.

The action is to enforce specific performance of a written contract for the sale of lands.

There was no error in striking out portions of the complaint, if the court correctly determined, as we think it did, that time was of the essence of the contract sued on.

Furthermore, that ruling is not specified as an error upon -which the plaintiff would rely on his motion for a new trial.

There is abundant evidence to sustain all the findings excepted to.

The only real question in the case is, whether time was of the essence of the contract, and to consider this question it is not necessary to determine whether the specifications as to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence comply with the requirements of the code or not.

All the necessary facts appear in the pleadings and findings.

The contract was made July 25, 1885. By its terms, the purchaser was to pay $256 upon its execution, and the same sum on the twenty-fifth day of July in each year of the three succeeding years, and also all taxes. The residue, $3,200, was to be paid July 25,1889, making $4,224 in all.

The purchaser was let into immediate…