83. Hamilton v. Elliott, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 375, per Gibson, J.;

1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 140. This seems to be the gist of Lord Coke's statement. Co. Litt. 208b.

84. Drew v. Wakefield, 54 Me. 291; Ward v. Patterson, 46 Pa. St. 372.

85. See Hayden v. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 528; Page v. Whidden, 59 N. H. 507.

86. 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 8th Am. Ed. 132; Whitton v. Whit-ton, 38 N. H. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 163, citing Comyn, Dig. "Pleader," C, 69; Royal v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 116 Ind. 424, 2 L. R. A. 526, 19 N. E. 202; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. City of Macon, 86 Ga. 585, 13 S. E. 21. And see Bowen v Bowen, 18 Conn

When, as is frequently the case, the nonpayment of rent is made a ground for the forfeiture of an estate as for a breach of condition subsequent, there are, by the common law, certain requirements as to the making of a demand for the rent as a prerequisite to the enforcement of the forfeiture. A demand must be made on the day on which the rent falls due,87 and it must be at a convenient hour on such day, before sunset.88 The demand must, moreover, bo made at the place named for the payment of rent89 or if no such place, upon the premises, at the most notorious place thereon,90 and must he for a sum neither greater nor less than the amount then due.91 The requirement of a demand has, however, been dispensed with by statute in England and some states in this country,92 and it is not necessary when the recovery of possession by the landlord is based, not on an express condition in the lease, but on a statutory right to recover possession on nonpayment of rent, unless, of course, the statute requires a demand.93 The requirement may be dispensed with by a special stipulation to that effect.94

535; Ellis v. Elkhart Car Works Co., 97 Ind. 247; Rowell v. Jew-ett, 69 Me. 293; Irvine v. Irvine, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 827, 15 S. W. 511 (condition precedent). But that a demand is necessary, see Donnelly v. Eastes, 94 Wis. 390, 69 N. W. 157. See, also, Bonni-well v. Madison, 107 Iowa 85, 77 N. W. 530; Hurto v. Grant, 90 Iowa, 414, 57 N. W. 899; Kamp-man v. Kampman, 98 Ark. 328, 135 S. W. 905: Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 341; Merifield v. Cobleigh, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 182; Risley v. McNiece, 71 Ind. 434; Buckmas-ter v Needham, 22 Vt. 617. That a legatee absent from the country must make a demand on one to whom land was devised on condition that he pay the legacy, see Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 389.

As to a demand for compliance with a condition for payment of taxes, see 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 194e(2), and Bacon v. Park, 19 Utah 246, 57 Pac. 28; Houghton v. Cook, 91 Vt. 197, 100 Atl. 115.

87. Forster v Wandlass, 7 Term R. 117; Bowman v. Foot, 29

Conn. 331; Chapman v. Harney,

100 Mass. 353; Questen v. Morgan, 34 N. II. 400; Godwin v. Harris, 71 Neb. 59, 8 Ann. Cas. 579, 98 N. W. 439; McCormick v. Connell, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 151.

But if the lease provides for reentry only if the rent remains un paid a certain number of days, the demand must be made on the last of those days. Acocks v. Phillips, 5 Hurl. & N. 183; Camp v. Scott, 47 Conn. 366; Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N. Y. 141; Johnston v. Hargrove, 81 Va. 118.

88. Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Saund. 287; Prout v. Roby, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 471, 21 L. Ed. 58; Woodwind v. Cone, 73 111. 241; Jenkins v. Jenkins. 63 Ind. 415, 30 Am. Rep 229; Matthews v. Crofford, 129 Tenn. 541, 167 S. W. 695; Johnston v. Hargrove, 81 Va. US.

89. Buskin v. Edwards, Cro. Eliz. 415; Gage v. Bates, 40 Cal 384; Bacon v. Western Furni ture Co., 53 Ind. 229; Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N. Y. 141; Bergdoll v. A. G. Spalding & Bros., 234 Pa. 588. Ann. Cas. 1913C 1197, 83 Atl. 427; Willard v. Benton, 57 Vt. 286.

- (d) Ignorance of condition. Intimately connected with the question of the necessity of a demand for performance is the question whether nonperformance is justified by ignorance of the condition. The cases are to the effect that in the case of a condition subsequent95 and perhaps of a condition precedent,96 the lack of

90. Connor v. Bradley, 1 How. (U. S.) 211, 217, 1 L. Ed. 105; McGlynn v. Moore, 25 Cal. 384; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 63 Ind. 415, 30 Am. Rep. 229; Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N. Y. 141, 51 Am. Dec. 275; Indian Land & Trust Co. v. Clement, 22 Okla. 40, 109 Pac. 1089; Rea v. Eagle Transfer Co., 201 Pa. 273, 88 Am. St. Rep. 809, 50 Atl. 764; Johnston v. Hargrove, 81 Va. 118.

91. Wheeldon v. Paul, 3 Car. & P. 613; Connor v. Bradley, 1 How. (U. S.) 211, 217, 1 L. Ed. 105; McCormick v. Connell, 6 Serg. & R. ( a.) 151; and see cases in preceding notes.

92. See 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 194f(2).

93. Woods v. Soucy, 166 111. 407, 47 X. E. 67; Union Scale Co. v. Iowa Machinery & Supply Co., 136 Iowa 171, 125 Am. St. Rep.

250, 113 N. W. 762; Kimball v. Rowland, 6 Gray (Mass.) 224; Gibbens v. Thompson, 21 Minn. 398; Dakota Hot Springs Co. v. Young, 9 S. D. 577, 70 N. W. 842; Horan v. Thomas 60 Vt. 325, 13 Atl. 567.

94. Goodright v. Cator, 2 Doug. 477; Lewis v. Hughes, 12 Colo. 208, 12 Pac. 621; Eichart v. Bar-gas, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 462; Fifty Associates v. Howland, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 214; Shanfelter v. Horner, 81 Md. 621, 32 Atl. 184; Pen-dill v. Union Min. Co., 64 Mich. 172, 31 N. W. 100.

95. Porter v. Fry, l Vent. 199; Doe d. Kenrick v. Beauclerk, 11 East 657; Taylor v. Crisp, 8 Ad. & El. 779; Astley v. Essex, L. R. 18 Eq. 290; Shackelford v. Hall, 19 111. 212.

96. Brennan v. Brennan, 185 Mass. 560, 102 Am. St. Rep. 363, notice of the condition is no excuse for its breach, except when there is a gift by will to an heir of testator, subject to a condition, in which case, the heir having a right by descent independently of the devise, it cannot be presumed, from his entry on the land, that he had notice of the devise and of the condition attached thereto.