Emma Forwood Denny, Appellant, v. John J. Cox, Appellee.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Vendor and purchaser, § 124 * —when sufficiency of abstract is to be determined. The- sufficiency of an abstract of title, upon a bill for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, is to be determined as of the date fixed by the contract or by the agreement of the parties when the party was to furnish the abstract and the deal was to be closed, and not at some time subsequent to the filing of a bill for specific performance.

2. Vendor and purchaser, § 124*—when abstract is insufficient. A sufficient abstract of title is not furnished where it was necessary for the vendor to bring a suit to quiet title, and the only service that could be nad on the defendants was by publication and it would be necessary to allow three years to pass before the right óf such defendants to open up the decree would be barred.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 16, 1917.

Rehearing denied July 2, 1917.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Emma Forwood Denny, complainant, against John J. Cox, defendant, for the specific performance of a written contract for the sale of real estate by complainant to defendant. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.

Jesse Peebles, for appellant.

James H. Murphy and Charles C. Terry, for appellee.