COOS BAT WA60N CO. V. OEOOKEB. 686 �appears to me, although both pieces of ground were bar- gained for at the same time, we must consider the bargain as consisting of two distinct contracta; and that the one part was sold for £300 and the other for £700." �In Clark v. Baker, 5 Met. 452, a contract to sell a cargo of yellow and white corn — the quantity being nnknown — on board the schooner of the seller, at a certain price per bushel for the yellow and another for the white corn, was ^eld to be an entire one for the cargo, and not any number of contracts for each kind of corn or separate bushel. In the course of the opinion the court says : "If the contract is entire, if it is one bargain, then it matters not whether there is one or many articles, and though each may bave an appropriate pi-ice," �In Davis v. Maxwell, 12 Met. 286, it was held that a contract to work "for seven months at $12 per month" was an entire one, and not seven separate contracts to work seven distinct months for seven distinct $12. The court said : "It is one bargain ; performance on one part and payment on the other; and not part performance and full payment for the part performed." �Accordiag to these authorities, as well as the nature of the case, this transaction was a single and entire contract for the sale of this land as a whole. Indeed, it is difficult to con- , ceive of it in any other light. Briefly stated, a land grant consisting of alternate sections within six miles on either side of a road, about 50 miles long, and running from tide- water on Coos bay across the coast range to Eoseburg, and containing about 96,000 acres of wild land, varying in, value per acre from nothing indefinitely upwards, was sold in a body for one dollar per acre, by a single written agreement. By the terms of this agreement the land was to be conveyed to the vendee as fast as it was surveyed and patented, and the portion already patented as soon as he oould examine the patent and was satisfied with the title — the payments to be made as the conveyanoes were. �There is nothing in the situation or condition of the sub- ject-matter or the parties that in any way indicates that this contract was not single and entire. It was one bargain, and. ����
