Courts of equity will quite frequently interpose to relieve against the con95. Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483; Quatman v. McCray, 128 Cal. 285, 60 Pac. 855; Scott v. Stipe, 12 Ind. 74; Provost v. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 809, 8 So. 584; Thomas v. Record, 47 Me. 500, 74 Am. Dec. 500; Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, 49 Minn. 301, 15 L. R. A. 751, 32 Am. St. Rep. 554, 51 N. W. 905; Winne-pesaukee Camp-Meeting Ass'n v. Gordon, 67 N. H. 98, 29 Atl. 412; Moore v. Pitts, 53 N. Y. 485; Up-ington v. Corrigan, 151 N. Y. 143, 37 L. R. A. 794, 45 N. E. 359. But occasionally it appears to be thought that the transferee in the particular case took subject to the condition because it was, in the creation of the condition, provided that he should do so. See Latham v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 253 111. 93, 184, 182 Am. Dec. 168. 97 N. E. 254; Munro v. Syracuse L. S. & N. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 224, 21 Ann. Cas. 594, 93 N. E. 516; O'Brien v. Weatherell, 14 Kan. 616.

96. Williams v. Vanderbilt, 145 111. 238, 21 L. R. A. 489, 36 Am. St. Rep. 486, 34 N. E. 476; Abrahams v. Tappe, 60 Md. 317; Main v. Green, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 448; Carnegie Nat. Gas. Co. v. Philadelphia Co. 158 Pa. St. 317, 27 Atl. 951.

97. Flower v. Peck, 1 Barn. & Adol. 428. See Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Singer, 49 Minn. 301, 15 L. R. A. 751, 32 Am. St. Rep. 554, 51 N. W. 905.

98. Arnsby v. Woodward, 6 Barn. & C. 519; Brock v. Desmond & Co., 154 Ala. 634, 129 Am. St. Rep. 71, 45 So. 665; Miller v. Prescott, 163 Mass. 12, 39 N. E. 409; 47 Am. St. Rep. 434; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313, 20 N. W. 241; Eten v. Luyster, 60 N. Y. 252; Cuschner v. Westlake, 43 Wash. 690, 86 Pac. 948.

99. Abrahams v. Tappe, 60 Md. 317; Crandall v. Sorg, 99 111. App. 22; Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Hanson, 101 Minn. 260, 118 Am. St. Rep. 623, 112 N. W. 217.

1. Williams v. Vanderbilt, 145 sequences of the breach of a condition, this involving merely one application of the general doctrine that equity will, in a proper case, relieve against a forfeiture. The limits however within which such relief will he given is a matter as to which it is impossible to deduce a satisfactory rule from the decisions.2

Equity will ordinarily relieve against a forfeiture for breach of a condition involving the payment of a sum of money which is ascertained, or readily ascertainable, upon the payment, not only of the principal, but also of interest thereon, and such costs as have accrued, the payment of interest and costs being regarded as compensating for non payment of the principal when due.3 On this theory relief has quite frequently been given in prevention of a forfeiture for non payment of rent, the condition being thus in effect treated as a mere security for the payment of the rent.4 Equity will relieve, it has been said, even though the default in payment of rent was wilful,5 but occasionally the courts, even though granting relief, refer to the equities of the particular case in a way to indicate that cases

111 238, 21 L. R. A. 489, 36 Am. St. Rep. 486, 34 N. E. 476; Lender-King v. Rosenthal, 63 Md. 28, 52 Am. Rep. 495.

2. See citations in notes in 86 Am. St. Rep. at p. 48, and in 69 L. R. A. at p. 833.

3. Worthen v. Ratcliffe, 42 Ark. 330; Noyes v. Anderson, 124 N. Y. 175, 21 Am. St. Rep. 657, 26 N. E. 316; Lynch v. Versailles Fuel Gas Co., 165 Pa. St. 518, 30 Atl. 984; Potomac Power Co. v. Burchell, 109 Va. 676, 64 S. E. 982; Henry v. Tupper, 29 Vt. 358; Donnelly v. Eastes, 94 Wis. 390, 69 N. W. 157, 159; 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 450. But as adverse to the grant of such relief, see Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Hanson, may arise in which relief would not be given.6 Relief as regards this particular case, that of non payment of rent, has been given even in the common law courts,7 and there are in some states statutory provisions for such relief.8

101 Minn. 260, 118 Am. St. Rep. 623, 112 N. W. 217.

4. 2 Story Eq. Jur. Sec.Sec. 1315, 1321, 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 453; Attala Min. & Manuf'g Co. v. Winchester, 102 Ala. 184, 14 So. 565; Lawrence v. Savannah, 71 Ga. 392; Patterson v. Northern Trust Co. 132 111. App. 208; Shriro v. Paga-nucci, 113 Me. 213, 93 Atl. 358, Thropp v. Field, 26 N. J. Eq. 82; Horton v. N. Y. Cent. H. R. R. Co., 12 Abb. N Cas. 30; Sunday Lake Min. Co. v. Wakefield, 72 Wis. 204, 1 L. R. A. 178, 39 N. W. 136.

5. Mactier v. Osborn, 146 Mass. 399, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282, 323, 15 N. E. 641; Henry v. Tupper, 29 Vt. 358, 372. But see Parsons v. Smilie, 97 Cal. 647, 32 Pac. 702.

The doctrine that equity will relieve against a forfeiture for non payment of an ascertained or ascertainable sum of money has been applied when the payment was to be made, not to the grantor, but to a third person, and accordingly relief has been given when the condition of a conveyance or devise called for a payment of that character.9 And on this theory relief has in some cases been given against a forfeiture for breach of a condition calling for the payment by the tenant of the taxes on the property,10 though in other cases relief has, after a sale for the unpaid taxes, been

6. Little Rock Granite Co. v. Shall, 59 Ark. 405, 27 S. W. 562; Palmer v. Ford, 70 111. 369; Wilson v. Jones & Tapp, 1 Bush. (Ky.) 173; Wylie v. Kirby, 115 Md. 282, Ann. Cas. 1913A 789, 80 Atl. 962; Randolph v. Mitchell, - Tex. Civ. App. -, 51 S. W. 297; Young v. Ellis, 91 Va. 297, 21 S. E. 480.

Relief against forfeiture for nonpayment of rent will not be given in favor of a tenant under a lease who has been guilty of breach of other covenants for which a right of re-entry is given and against which equity will not relieve (Nokes v. Gibbon, 3 Drew. 681, 693; Bowser v. Colby, 1 Hare, 109), nor if the restoration of the tenant to the undisturbed possession of the premises will endanger the rights of the landlord. Sunday Lake Min. Co. v. Wakefield, 72 Wis. 204, 1 L. R. A. 178, 39 N. W. 136.

7. Gregg's Case, 2 Salk. 596; R. P.-21