Robinson v. Traufant, 97 Mich. 410.

Plaintiff was vendee under an executory land contract and brings this bill to compel specific performance. Defendant alleged that payments were not kept up on the contract and that plaintiff had been served with a notice to quit and that the contract had thereby been forfeited.

The court found that the plaintiff had as a matter of fact become delinquent in payment but that both parties were in tacit agreement not to treat time as of the essence of the contract and that the matter had run along for many years, the plaintiff keeping up the interest and the defendant being content to regard the matter as an investment. Therefore, upon plaintiff offering to pay the amount of the purchase price she is entitled to specific performance of the contract.

Greenop v. Wilcox and Hyatt, 85 Mich. 49. The real defendant in this case is Wilcox, Hyatt merely being the tenant of Wilcox and in possession of the premises. Defendant is one of two vendees under an executory land contract. He acquired his rights under and assignment from one of the two original vendees. At the time of this said assignment defendant called on plaintiff and told him he was ready at any time to pay his portion of the purchase price and would do so whenever notified. Plaintiff brings this action in ejectment to get possession of the premises, no payments having been made by defendant or his covendee.

The court held that plaintiff could not declare defendant's rights forfeited under the contract without first notifying him to pay; such notice being a condition precedent to declaring the contract forfeited. And that defendant's rights could not be affected by the acts of the other vendee.

Stickney v. Parmenter, 35 Mich. 237. Plaintiff brings this action for the specific performance of an executory land contract. Defendant is assignee of the original vendor and defends on the ground that the contract had been forfeited by plaintiff taking timber off the land before the amount of the purchase price was paid. Plaintiff alleged an agreement with the assignor of defendant whereby they could remove said timber in order to raise the purchase price. After defendant began proceedings to regain possession plaintiff offered to pay the purchase price.

The court held that there was not sufficient evidence to hold that plaintiff was entitled to remove the timber and that defendant was justified in declaring the contract forfeited; still since the plaintiff without much delay offered and tendered payment of the purchase price and the cost of the proceedings already taken, defendant should have accepted same, and specific performance of the original contract will be enforced.

Fitzhugh v. Maxwell, 34 Mich. 138. Plaintiff sold land to the defendant under an executory contract. Plaintiff alleged default in payment on the part of the defendant and brings this bill praying that the contract be declared forfeited by the court. The contract itself contained no clause providing for forfeiture in case of nonpayment.

The court held that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enforce forfeiture. That time was not made of the essence of this contract and that plaintiff has not given the defendant any notice that if the payments are not made by a certain date the contract will be forfeited. Forfeiture cannot be enforced in such a case.

Shafer v. Niver, 9 Mich. 253. The facts in this case in so far as the question of forfeiture are concerned are as follows: Plaintiff was vendee under an executory land contract and brings this bill to secure a conveyance of the premises. The payments of the purchase price were not made as soon as provided for in the contract, said contract also containing a clause of forfeiture in case the terms were not adhered to.

The court held that time was not made of the essence in this particular contract. The parties themselves by their previous actions in relation to the contract did not treat time as of the essence and there is nothing in the contract to make it especially so. Plaintiff is now ready and willing to perform and the contract was not forfeited beyond redemption by his failure to pay the installments on the date they fell due.