Hickman v. Chaney, 155 Mich. 217.

Plaintiff is assignee under a land contract and brings this bill to enforce specific performance of the contract. Assignor of plaintiff was in default at the time of the assignment and the contract contained the usual provision that failure to keep up the installments of payments would entitle vendor to declare the contract void. Before purchasing the contract plaintiff made inquiries of the defendant and was informed that if he took over the contract and proceeded to pay the amount of the balance due, the defendant would execute a deed to the premises. This the defendant now refused to do.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and that the defendant could not now declare the contract forfeited. That although the contract had been declared forfeited by defendant as far as plaintiff's assignor was concerned, their actions in leading plaintiff to believe if he would assume the contract he could complete the payment of the amount still due thereon will be considered a waiver of their right to forfeit the contract as far as the plaintiff is concerned.

Old Second National Bank of Bay City v. Alpena County Savings Bank, 115 Mich. 548. Plaintiff brought a bill to compel the specific performance of a contract to convey certain land. Both plaintiff and defendant acquired their rights through various assignments and conveyances. Plaintiff defaulted in the payment of installments due on the purchase price and defendant declared the contract forfeited. Subsequent to this, however, defendant sought to enforce the contract by bringing an action to collect the purchase price from the defednant by foreclosing the vendor's lien.

Defendant contends that this action cannot be maintained because the plaintiff refused to perform its part of the con-tract and that its rights under the contract were duly forfeited.

The court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the failure of the plaintiff to keep up the payments and the ensuing notice of forfeiture would have been sufficient to work a forfeiture or not; for here the defendant chose to waive the forfeiture by proceedings to enforce the contract and filing the vendor's lien against the property. Subsequent to the default defendant treated the contract as still existing and it cannot now allege that the contract was forfeited.

Corning v. Loomis, 111 Mich. 23. Plaintiff was vendor under executory land contract and brings an action to recover the possession of the premises' upon defendant's failure to keep up the payment of installments as due under the contract. No notice was given defendant of plaintiff's intention to declare the contract void.

The court held that mere failure of the vendee to keep up the payments as they became due did not of itself work a forfeiture; that in addition thereto there must be notice given the vendee by the vendor that such failure on his part has terminated the contract.

Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158. Defendant is vendee in a land contract and is in possession of the premises and plaintiff brings this action in ejectment to gain possession thereof, alleging defendant had forfeited contract by not paying the installments as they became due. Defendant alleged offer of payment.

The court held that plaintiff by refusing to accept defendant's offer of payment, even though that offer did consist in an offer to perform certain work which according to the terms of a separate contract was to be taken as payment for the land, had deprived himself of all right to declare a forfeiture for failure to pay according to the terms of the contract.