Plaintiffs brought replevin to recover a stock of goods for a violation of the following contract, dated July 21, 1898:

“ The said George Hildebrand agrees to buy the tailoring stock and fixtures belonging to Goodspeed & Son, as per invoice, and on the following conditions: To pay down, as security for faithful performance of.contract, three hundred dollars. To report each night amount of sales, and upon what terms were made, together with stock number of goods sold; and to turn over amount of cash received. Settlements to be made every week, and, after store expense is paid, the said Goodspeed & Son to place balance, if any, to credit of said George Hildebrand, to apply on purchase price of goods. No outside debts to be made on credit of store, and no credits given, without sanction of said Goodspeed & Son. Any failure in performance of this contract or agreement on the part of said George Hildebrand forfeits all rights and all payments made; and, furthermore, if said George Hildebrand fails to comply with all the conditions of this contract or agreement, the said Goodspeed & Son have the right to enter said store and repossess said property without process of law, and said George Hildebrand hereby waives any right of demand for said goods. The said stock of woolens, trimmings, fixtures, etc., to remain absolutely the property of Goodspeed & Son until paid for. Inventory of said stock and fixtures to be made every six months, and same reported to Goodspeed & Son; and the said Goodspeed & Son hereby have the privilege of checking and proving said inventory at their option. The said George Hildebrand is not to sell this contract or agreement without the written consent of said Goodspeed & Son.”

We think the attack made by the defendant’s counsel upon Delbert C. Goodspeed in his cross-examination, and the remarks made to him by one of the attorneys, were unjustifiable, and constitute reversible error, within Gould v. Gregory, 126 Mich. 594 (85 N. W. 1077); Coan v. *377Township of Brownstown, 126 Mich. 626 (86 N. W. 130); People v. Gotshall, 123 Mich. 474 (82 N. W. 274); and many other decisions of this court. It is unnecessary to quote these questions. They are of the same character as those in the cases cited, and equally as prejudicial.

The court instructed the jury that, inasmuch as the contract did not provide any specific time for the full payment of the stock, a reasonable time was intended, and if they should find that the defendant was paying for such stock of goods within a reasonable time, and that that time had not arrived when the suit was brought, and defendant was not otherwise in default, they must find for the defendant. ■ There was no question of reasonable time involved. No claim was made by the plaintiffs that defendant did not act within a reasonable time. They based their suit upon the violation of the provisions of the contract, upon which there was a sharp conflict of testimony. Were this the sole error in the case, we might hold that it was not prejudicial, but-we decide the point in view of another trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.