Satterlee v. Cronkhite, 114 Mich. 634. The plaintiff here was the vendee in a land contract and is suing to recover from the defendant who was the vendor, the amount she had paid on the contract of purchase before she defaulted therein. The contract provided that in the event of the vendee failing to keep the installments paid as they became due the vendor should have the right to cancel the contract and to immediate possession of the premises. The plaintiff defaulted in her payments and was given notice by the defendant that the contract was void.

The court held that the plaintiff had no standing in court and could not recover what she had paid on the contract. By the terms of the contract all payments made before a forfeiture should be declared were to be forfeited to the vendor. Plaintiff had failed to perform her part of the contract and is not entitled to any relief.

Lowrie v. Gourlay, 112 Mich. 641. Plaintiff brought an action in assumpsit to recover the amount he had paid on an installment contract for the purchase of land. The contract had been declared forfeited by the defendant. Plaintiff had already been granted a decree for the specific performance of the contract in a court of equity, but the decree was dismissed because he failed and refused to pay the balance due on the purchase price.

The court held that the plaintiff had no standing in court; that he neglected to pay and never tendered the amount due on the contract. By being in default the plaintiff forfeited the amount already paid and since he was granted relief in equity if he would complete the payment of the purchase price he cannot maintain this action to recover the forfeited payments.

Truesdail v. Ward, 24 Mich. 116. Plaintiff brought a bill to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey land. Time was expressly made of the essence of the contract and if the installment payments were not made when due the contract was to become void. Plaintiff defaulted in his payments and defendant declared the contract forfeited. Four months after this forfeiture defendant conveyed the premises to a third party. Six months later or ten months after the forfeiture was delcared the plaintiff offered to pay the balance of the purchase price and upon defendant refusing to convey this bill was filed.

The court held that the defendant in this case had been justified in declaring a forfeiture. In order for the vendee in such a case to protect his equities under the contract he must not allow the vendor to suppose that he has asquiesced in the forfeiture when declared by the vendor. Here the vendee made no protest when the forfeiture was declared and since the defendant has sold the land to a third party the plaintiff's rights under the contract will be terminated.