McDonald v. Andrews, 199 Mich. 161. Plaintiff brought a bill for the specific performance of a land contract. The contract was a lease with an option to purchase and plaintiff exercised the option and defendant refused to convey, claiming that the contract had been forfeited because it has been assigned by plaintiff when it contained a clause against assignment.

The court held that the assignment in this case was made merely for the purpose of putting the contract on record and that the sister of the plaintiff who was the assignee did not even know of the assignment. Plaintiff remained in possession all the time. That the purpose of a covenant against assignment is to permit the vendor to choose his own tenant; this object was in no way interfered with by the transaction in this case and when plaintiff offered to pay the contract price for the premises he was entitled to a conveyance.

Maday v. Roth, 160 Mich. 289. Plaintiff filed a bill for specific performance of a land contract. He is assignee of the original vendee under the contract which provided for forfeiture in case of assignment without written consent of vendor. Defendant assented orally to the assignment.

The court held that the parol assent on the part of the vendor to the assignment constituted a valid waiver of the provisions of the contract prohibiting the transfer of the contract without the written consent of the vendor.

Peters v. Canfield, 74 Mich. 498. Plaintiff filed a bill praying for the specific performance of a land contract which he holds as assignee from the original vendee. Defendant contends that the contract had been forfeited by the assignment, since it contained a clause providing for forfeiture in case of sale or assignment unless such assignment should be indorsed on the contract in writing. Complainant contends that there was parol assent to the assignment and defendant denies even parol assent.

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to es-tablish the parol assent which the plaintiff claimed; that by such parol assent the defendant had waived the provision in the contract that the assignment must be indorsed thereon.