
    GRAND ISLE COUNTY, JANUARY TERM, 1884.
    Present: Ross, Yeazey, Taft, and Rowell, J\L
    WARREN CORBIN v. FAIRBANKS, BARLOW & CO.
    
      Contract in the Alternative.
    
    When. it is at tbe option of tbe vendee to pay in money by a time certain for property purchased, or in one of two other modes, after the time has elapsed, and especially after demand of performance and refusal, the. vendee is liable to pay in money at the vendor’s option.
    Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury, February Term, 1883, Royce, Ch. J., presiding. Yerdict ordered for the plaintiff.
    It appeared by the written contract that the plaintiff sold to the defendant “a partially completed steamboat, now in the process of construction in the yard of said Corbin * * *" and also all the materials for the completion of said boat procured by the said Corbin,” etc.; also, “now, in consideration of said sale and conveyance,the said Fairbanks, Barlow & Co. promise to pay to said Corbin the sum of three thousand dollars in equal payments in six and nine and twelve months from this date; and in lieu thereof, at our option, to convey to said Corbin such a proportional share of said boat as said three thousand dollars bear to the total cost thereof, or, if we shall form a stock company for the ownership of said boat, to convey to him the same proportional share in the stock of said company.”
    
      It also appeared that the contract was made March 2d, 1880; that the writ in this suit was dated August 12th, 1882; and that, before'the .commencement of this action, the plaintiff demanded the money due under the contract.
    
      Henry G. Adams and Daniel Roberts, for the plaintiff.
    
      Burt and Hall de Burt, for the defendant.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Rowell, J.

This contract is not susceptible of the construction contended for by the defendants. It is a contract to do one of three things by a time certain at defendants’ option. That option continued until said time elapsed, after which, and especially after demand of performance by plaintiff and refusal by defendants, it was gone, and defendants became liable to pay in money at plaintiff’s option.

Affirmed.  