Bugaski v. Siwka, 200 Mich. 415.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the breach of a land contract. Plaintiff was vendee in a contract executed with defendant; as vendee he made certain payments under the terms of the contract but later a question came up as to the defendant's title to the property. During the pendence of the litigation concerning title the plaintiff did not keep up the payments, the time for payment being orally extended by the defendant. Title was finally held by the court not to be in defendant at all but in a third party. So plaintiff was compelled to give up the premises. The defense to this action is based on the theory that plaintiff had forfeited all his rights under the contract by not keeping up the payments.

The court held that the plaintiff had not forfeited his rights. By the decree of the court the defendant's title was extinguished and plaintiff was excused from tendering payment. Defendant not being in a position to perform, it was unnecessary for plaintiff to tender payment. Plaintiff can recover damages in this case.

Cornell v. Norton, 188 Mich. 187. Plaintiff was vendee under a land contract. He entered into possession and paid the taxes which it was the duty of the vendor to pay. He remained in possession for eleven years and made valuable improvements on the land but never paid any on the purchase price. Defendant after this long length of time declared the contract forfeited for nonpayment and plaintiff brings this action to be relieved against the forfeiture and offering to pay the purchase price now.

The court held that plaintiff would be granted relief against the forfeiture if he would pay the purchase price, the amount of the costs in this suit and also the costs, plus fifty dollars, of the ejectment suit which defendant had brought against him. Plaintiff being allowed to deduct the amount of the taxes he had paid.

John v. McNeal, 167 Mich. 148. Plaintiff filed this bill to compel specific performance of a land contract and to be granted relief from a forfeiture declared by the defendant. Plaintiff purchased certain property from defendant on a land contract. He became delinquent in his payments thereon and plaintiff entered into possession and conveyed the premises to another.

This court held that the plaintiff was entitled to relief in this instance. The fact that plaintiff's rights under the contract were subject to forfeiture at law does not determine the rights of the parties. It is the province of a court of equity to grant relief in just such cases. It would be oppressive and unjust to forfeit plaintiff's rights under this contract.