Tower v. Detroit Trust Co., 190 Mich. 670. The plaintiff petitioned the court to cancel a certain land contract made between himself and the Chippewa Construction Co., the defendant in this case being the receiver of the defunct construction company. According to the terms of the contract the company agreed to purchase certain property from the plaintiff herein for $97,000. One thousand dollars of the purchase price was to be paid down and the balance in monthly payments. The down amount was paid, but none of the monthly installments were ever paid. The total amount of the purchase price was to be paid by February 1st, 1913. On that date the company was already in the hands of the defendant, its receiver, and the plaintiff served notice on the defendant by which he exercised his rights under the contract and declared the contract forfeited. Defendant urged that equity abhors and will not enforce a forfeiture. The court held that this forfeiture will be enforced. The defendant receiver did not tender payment nor is it doing so now. There is no prospect that it will be able to offer payment in the near future. The plaintiff complied with all the terms of the contract and has performed all the conditions of the contract that it was incumbent on him to perform. Equity will not as a general rule enforce forfeiture, but where as here, the equities of the case are all with the party seeking to have a forfeiture enforced, then equity will enforce a forfeiture.

Donnelly v. Lyons, 173 Mich. 515. The plaintiff brought a bill against the defendant to quiet title to certain property. She had contracted to sell this property, consisting of twenty-six lots, to the defendant for $1040. Two dollars was paid down and the balance was to be paid at the rate of $5.00 or more every three months. The first payment was due April 10th, 1910, and was never paid, the two dollar down payment being the only payment ever made. When the time for the first payment arrived and no payment was made the plaintiff proceeded to dispose of the lots elsewhere, and did sell them sometime in July to another party. Lyons assigned his contract to one Rice shortly after executing it and after the above mentioned sale to the third party by the plaintiff. Rice made a claim to the title of the lots and this bill is brought to clear up the title. After learning of Rice's claim the plaintiff immediately notified him that the contract which he held as assignee was forfeited.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for in this bill and that she was justified in declaring forfeited the contract made with Lyons and assigned to Rice. According to the terms of the said contract defendant was to keep all taxes which should be assessed against the premises paid. The defendant defaulted in the payment of taxes for one year and without serving any notice of forfeiture plaintiff brought this action.

The court held that the plaintiff could not maintain the present action. The relations between the parties were contract relations; such relations might continue to exist after a breach by the vendee, for the vendor might decide to waive the breach or forego her action. This contract contained no provision that notice of intention to declare a forfeiture was waived and in view of such absence the vendor must terminate the contract relation by notice of forfeiture or do some affirmative act which in itself determines the contract relation before a summary action to recover possession of the premises can be begun.