46. Lewis v. Lewis, 74 Conn. 630, 92 Am. St. Rep. 240, 51 Atl. 854; Board of Education Normal School Dist. v. First Baptist Church of Normal, 63 111. 204; Elkhart Car Works v. Ellis, 113 Ind. 215; Kenner v. American Contract Co., 9 Bush. (Ky.) 202;

Marwick v. Andrews, 25 Me. 525; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174, 28 Am. Dec. 391; Board of Education of Humphreys County v. Baker, 124 Tenn. 39, 134 S. W. 863.

47. Chalker v. Chalker, 1 Conn. 79, 6 Am. Dec. 206; Rogers v. Teager, 170 Iowa, 604, 153 N. W. 159; Williams v. Angell, 7 R. I. 145; First Presbyterian Church of Beaufort v. Elliott, 65 S. C. 251, 43 S. E. 674; White v. Britton, 75 S. C. 428, 56 S. E. 232.

In order that an entry be effective to terminate the grantee's estate, it must, it has been said, be made for the purpose of enforcing the forfeiture. Bowen v. Bowen, 18 Conn. 535; Osgood v. Abbott, 58 Me. 73. But it need not be accompanied by notice of the purpose. Doe d. Jones v. Williams, 5 B. & Ad. 783, especially when there is no ambiguity in this regard. Langley v. Chapin, 134 Mass. 82.

48. Golconda Northern Ry. v. Gulf Lines Connecting R. R. of Illinois, 265 111 194, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 833, 106 N. E. 818; Stroth-ers v. Woodcox, 142 Iowa, 648, 121

- Condition annexed to term of years. Since, in the case of a lease for years, livery of seisin was not employed for the purpose of commencing the term, entry was never necessary in order to enforce a forfeiture of the term for breach of condition49 except, it seems, when the lease expressly provided that the landlord might re-enter on breach of condition.50 A forfeiture for breach of a condition imposed in such a lease is ordinarily enforced by an action of ejectment, or, in some states, by a statutory proceeding of a summary character for the recovery of possession.51 An actual re-entry would no doubt be sufficient52 except as the right of entry is in some states restricted by the requirement that entry shall be peaceable in character.53 But any clear assertion by word or act of an intention that the tenancy shall come to an end, without any entry or the bringing of any action, would usually be regarded as sufficient,54 except perhaps in some jurisdictions, when there is a specific provision for reentry.55

N. W. 51; Little Falls Water-Power Co. of Minnesota v. Mahan, 69 Minn. 253, 72 N. W. 69; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Lakeview Traction Co., 100 Miss. 281, 56 So. 393; Bredell v. Kerr, 242 Mo. 317, 147 S. W. 105.

49. Co. Litt. 214b; Browning v. Beston, 1 Plowd. 135, 136.

50. Baylis v. Le Gros, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 537; Arnsby v. Woodward, 6 Barn. & C. 519; Jones v. Carter, 15 Mees. & W. 718, per Parke, B.

At the present day the bringing of an action to recover the land is in England regarded as equivalent to a re-entry under such a clause. Sergeant v. Nash, (1903) 2 K. B. 304. But in Guf-fy v. Hukill, 34 W. Va. 49, 8 L. R. A. 759, 26 Am. St. Rep. 901, 11 S. E. 754, and Crean v. McMahon, 106 Md. 507, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 798, 68 Atl. 265, it is said that a reentry is necessary if the lease expressly provides for re-entry.

51. See Smith v. Hill, 63 Cal. 51; Schroeder v. Tomlinson, 70 Conn. 348, 39 Atl. 484; Whitwell v. Harris, 100 Mass. 532; Preston v. Stover, 70 Neb. 632, 97 N. W. 812; Quinn v. McCarty, 81 Pa. St. 475; Matthews v. Crof-ford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S. W. 695; and other cases cited 2 Tiffany. Landlord & Ten. Sec. 274b.

52. Wright v. Everett, 87 Iowa, 697, 55 N. W. 4; Losch v. Pickett, 36 Kan. 216, 12 Pac. 822; Abrahams v. Tappe, 60 Mo. 317; Cock-erline v. Fisher, 140 Mich. 95, 103 N. W. 522; Metropolitan Land Co. v. Manning, 98 Mo. App. 248, 71 S. W. 696.

53. Winn v. State, 55 Ark. 360, 18 S. W. 375; Kerr v. O'Keefe, 138 Cal. 415, 71 Pac. 447; Goshen v. People, 22. Colo. 270, 44 Pac. 503; Peacock & Hunt Naval Stores Co. v. Brooks Lumber Co., 96 Ga. 542, 23 S. T. 835; Hub-ner v. Feige, 90 111. 208; Thiel v. Bull's Ferry Land Co., 58 N. J.

Jurisdiction of equity. The general rule that equity will not enforce a forfeiture56 has been applied in connection with the question of enforcing a forfeiture for breach of condition subsequent.57 It appears, however, that if the person entitled to assert the forfei ture has possession of the land, he may proceed in equity to quiet his title by procuring the cancellation of the original conveyance by which he created the condition.58 In such case his possession is material, it seems, for two reasons, firstly, as showing that he has asserted a forfeiture by entry, or that, by reason of his previous possession, entry is unnecessary,58a and second

L. 212, 33 Atl. 281; Matthews v. Crofford, 128 Tenn. 541, 167 S. W. 695; Spencer v. Commercial Co., 30 Wash. 520, 71 Pac. 53.

54. Read v. Tuttle, 35 Conn. 25, 26, 95 Am. Dec. 216; -McCroskey v. Hamilton, 108 Ga. 640, 75 Am. St. Rep. 901, 34 S. E. Ill; Cheney v. Bonnell, 58 111. 268; Alexander v. Hodges, 41 Mich. 691, 3 N. W. 187; Walker v. Engler, 30 Mo. 130; Wills v. Manufacturers' Natural Gas Co., 130 Pa. St. 222, 5 L. R. A. 603, 18 Atl. 721; Guffy, v. Hukill, 34 W. Va. 49, 8 L. R. A. 759, 26 Am. St. Rep. 901, 11 S. E. 754.

55. Ante this section at note 50.

56. See 1 Pomeroy, Eq. .Jur. Sec. 459.

57. Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468; Boone v. Clark, 129 111. 466, 498, 5 L. R. A. 276, 21 N. E. 850; Strothers v. Woodcox, ly, as furnishing a basis for his proceeding to quiet title. In a few jurisdictions it appears that equity will enforce a forfeiture for breach of condition subsequent, without regard to the plaintiff's possession or non possession.58b

142 Iowa 648, 121 N. W. 51; Birmingham v. Lesan, 77 Me. 494. 10 Atl. 151; Chute v. Washburn, 44 Minn. 312, 46 N. W. 555; Moberly v. Trenton, 181 Mo. 637, 81 S. W. 169; Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 513, 530; Livingston v. Stickles, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 398; Bird v. Hawkins, 58 N. J. Eq. 229, 42 Atl. 588; Livingston v. Thomp-kins, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 415, 8 Am. Dec. 598; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Neighbors, 51 Miss. 412; Donnelly v. Eastes, 94 Wis. 390, 69 N. W. 157.

58. Shannon v. Long, 180 Ala. 128, 60 So. 273; Birmingham v. Lesan, 77 Me. 494, 1 Atl. 151; Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Rags-dale, 54 Miss. 200; Hauf v. School Dist. No. 1, 52 Mont. 395, 158 Pac. 315; Lowrey v. Finkelston, 149 Wis. 222, 134 N. W. 344.

58a. Ante this section note 41.

The rule that equity will not enforce a forfeiture does not preclude the equitable enforcement by injunction or specific performance of a covenant or other stipulation merely because a breach thereof also involved a breach of a condition subsequent.59 A condition subsequent, however, is one thing, and a contract is another, and the mere fact that there is a condition enabling one to divest another's estate in case of non performance does not of itself show any right in him to a decree in equity compelling performance.60 As has been judicially remarked, "it by no means follows, because a grantee consents to take an estate subject to a condition, that he also consents to obligate himself personally for the performance of the condition."61

58b. Cherokee Const. Co. v. Bishop, 86 Ark. 489, 112 S. W. 189; Ross v. Sanderson, - Okla. -, L. R. A. 1917C 879, 162 Pac. 709; Parker v. Meadows, 20 Wyo. 183, 122 Pac. 586. So by statute in California. Quatman v. Mc-Cray, 128 Cal. 285, 60 Pac. 855; Firth v. Marovich, 160 Cal. 257. Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1190, 116 Pac. 729.

59. Watrous v. Allen, 57 Mich. 362, 58 Am. Rep. 363, 24 N. W. 104; Clark v. Martin. 49 Pa. 289; Ball v. Milliken, 31 R. I. 36, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623, Ann. Cas. 1912B 30; 76 Atl. 789; Munro v. Syracuse, L. S. & N. R. Co., 200 N. Y. 224, Ann. Cas. 594, 93 N. E. 516.

60. Hale v. Finch, 104 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 732; Seaboard Air

Line R. Co. v. Anniston Mfg. Co., 186 Ala. 264, 65 So. 187; Sanitary Dist, of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 278 111. 529, 116 N. E. 161; Close v. Burlington C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 64 Iowa, 149, 19 N. 843; Blanchard v. Detroit, L. & L. M. R. Co., 31 Mich. 43, 18 Am. Rep. 142; Woodruff v. Trenton Water Power Co., 10 N. J. Eq. 489; Palmer v. Fort Plain & C. Plank Road Co., 11 N. Y. 376; Er-win v. Hurd, 13 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 91; Sharon Iron Co. v. Erie, 41 Pa. 341; But see dicta in Whitney v. Union R. Co., 11 Gray (Mass.) 359, 71 Am. Dec. 715; Johnston v. City of Los Angeles, - Cal. -, 168 Pac. 1047.

61. Selden, J., in Palmer v. Fort Plain & C. Plank Road Co., 11 N. Y. 376.