Page images
PDF
EPUB

estate than he is by law entitled to do, he forfeits his estate to the person next entitled in remainder or reversion.1 Forfeiture also occurred when alienation was contrary to law; such as in mortmain, or to an alien. In this country such forfeitures are unknown.3 The conveyance by the tenant operates only on the interest he possessed, and does not affect the remainderman or reversioner.4

3. By Attainder.-Abolished.5 4. Of the Body.-Obsolete. 6

5. Of Copyhold. — By a wrongful act to the prejudice of the lord, or by anything which amounts to a determination of the tenancy,

6. Condition.—A lessor or grantor can annex any condition not illegal or repugnant, to the grant, upon the breach of which the grant or lease becomes forfeited.* Expressed or implied.”

7. In Contract.—By breach of.10

8. Covenants.-By breach of. 11 To insure and keep insured.12 To repair. 13 Against waste.14 Not to under-let.15 Not to sell, dispose, or assign,16 In restraint of alienation and of waste.1? On breach of pre-emption.18 Covenants are not broken by bank

1. 2 Bl. Com. 274; Stump v. Findley, 13. Minshall v. Oakes, 2 H. & N. 793; 2 Rawle (Pa.), 168; 1 Washb. Real Prop. Martyn v. Clue, 18 Q. B. 661; Monk i'. 92, 197; Wms. Real Prop. 25; 2 Shars- Noyes, i Carr. & P. 265: Goage v. Lockwood Bl. Com. 121, n.

wood, 2 F. & F. 115; Doe v. Jackson, 2 2. i Broom & Hadley Com. 696; 8 & 9 Stark. 293; Stanley v. Towgood, 3 Scott, Vict. c. 106, $ 4.

313; Myers v. Burns, 35 N. Y. 269; Doe 3. 2 Kent Com. 281, 282; 4 Kent Com. v. Bird, 6 Carr. & P. 195; Doe v. Jones, 81, 82, 424; 1 Hill Abr. ch. 4; 3 Dall. 4 Barn. & A. 126; Few v. Perkins, L. R. (U. S.) 486; 5 Ohio, 30.

2 Exch. 92; Doe v. Lewis, 5 Ad. & Ell. 4. 4 Kent Com. 81, 82, 424; 5 Dane 277; 3 Wait Act. 71. Ab. 6; Wms. Real Prop. 92, 197; I

14. 2 BI. Com. 283; Coke Inst. 299; Washb. Real Prop. 92, 197; 22 N. H. Bacon Abr. Forfeiture; Comyns Dig. 500.

Cov.; Dane Ab. Cov.; 10 Viner Abr. 371; 5. 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 88; 5 Geo. IV. 2 Kent Com. 318; i Washb. Real Prop. c. 17; Const. U. S. art. III. $ 3.

118; Goodright v. Vivian 8 East, 190; 6. Hab. 270, 293.

Doe v. Bond, 5 Barn. & C. 858; Phillips 7. Elt. Copyh. 200.

V. Covert, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1; Jack8. 2 BI. Com. 281; Shattuck v. Love- son v. Brownson, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) joy, 8 Gray (Mass.), 204.

227; Schermerhorn v. Buell, 4 Den. (N. 9. O'Brien v. Doe, 6 Ala. 787; 2 Bl. Y.) 422; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Com. 281; Walker's Am. L. 299; 1 Washb. Y.) 9; Livingston v. Reynolds, 26 Wend. Real Prop. 454; Co. Litt. S 361; 1 Prest. (N. Y.) 115; Co. Litt. 53. 54; Jackson v. Est. 578; Tudor Lead. Cas. 794.

Andrews v. 18 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 433. Conditions should be construed liber- 15. Greenaway v. Adams, 12 Ves. 395; ally so as to secure the intent of the par- Roe v. Soles, i Maule & S. 297; Doe v. ties, and not with the striciness applica- Laming, 4 Campb. 77; Waldroud 1'. ble to common-law conditions. Adams Hawkins, 32 L. T. 119; Field v. Mills, on Eject. 176.

33 N. J. Law, 254; 3 Wait Act. & Def. 10. Betts v. Burch, 4 Hurl. & N. 519; 71. Taylor v. Marcella, 1 Woods (U. S.), 302; 16. Doe v. Bevan, 3 M. & S. 353; Doe Esmond v. Van Benschoten, 12 Barb. V. Hogg, 4 Dow. & R. 226: Jackson 7'. (N. Y.) 366; Richards v. Edict, 17 Barb. Silvernail, 15 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 278; (N. Y.) 260; Salers v. Rolph, 15 Abb. Pr. Jackson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. Ch. (N. (N. Y.) 273; Stearns v. Barrett, i Pick. Ý.) 66; Jackson v. Corliss, 7 Johns. Ch. (Mass.) 443; s. C., II Am. Dec. 223. (N. Y.) 531.

11. Cro. Jac. 398; 3 Wait Act. 71; 2 17. Veiplanck v. Wright, 23 Wend. (N. Washb. Real Prop. 263.

Y.) 506. 12. Doe v'. Shewin, 3 Camp. 134; Doe 18. Jackson v. Groat, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 0. Peck, 1 Barn. & A. 428; Price v. Wor- 285; Jackson v. Schutz, 18 Johns. Ch wood, 4 H. & N. 512.

(N. Y.) 174; De Peyster v. Michael, 6

ruptcy, but are by voluntary assignment. For non-payment of rent.

9. Of Corporate Rights. 3

10. Of Charter. -A corporation forfeits its charter by wilful nonfeasance or malfeasance, neglect of duty or abuse of corporate powers, or by assumption of authority not conferred. Forfeitable to the State or sovereignty which granted the charter, through court of competent jurisdiction, on judgment of ouster.4

11. For Crimes.- Forfeiture for crimes seldom occurs.5 When it occurs, the State or government recovers only the title which the owner had.6

12. In a Deed.? N. Y. 467; Livingston v. Stickles, 8 Paige In the latter case, Spencer, J., said: “An (N. Y.), 398.

information in the nature of a writ of quo 1. Roe v. Golliers, 2 Term R. 133; warranto is a substitute for that ancient Holland v. Cole, i H. & C. 67; Doe v. writ, which has fallen into disuse; and the Clark, 8 East, 185; Doe v. Carew, 2 Ad. information which has superseded the old & Ell. N. S. 316; 42 Eng. C. L. 692; Doe writ is defined to be a criminal method of v. David, 6 C. & P. 614.

prosecution, as well to punish the usurpa2. See, post, $ 27.

tion of the franchise as to oust him and 3. City of Rochester 7. Bronson, 41 seize it for the crown. It has for a long How. (N. Y.) 78; Field on Corp. & 442. time been applied to the mere purpose of

4. Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. (U. trying the civil right of seizing the franS.) 210; People v. Society, etc., i Paine chise or ousting the wrongful possessor, (U. S.), 660; State v. Bradford, 32 Vt. 50; the fine being nominal only." State v. Cincin., 23 Ohio St. 445; Atty.- 5. Steph. Cr. Dig. 39: Foster Crim. L. gen. v. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 239; 95; 1 Washb. R. Prop. 92. State v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 8 Humph. If a person solemnizes or assists at (Tenn.) 235; State v. Com. Bank, 33 Miss. the marriage of any descendant of King 474; State v. Favill, 24 N. J. Law, 370; George II. in contravention of the statute People v. Hilsdale Turnp. Co., 33 Wend. of 12 Geo. III, c. 2, his lands and goods (N. Y.) 254; Terret v. Taylor, 9 Cranch are forfeited. (U. S.), 43. By scire facias or quo war- If a person is outlawed for treason, his ranto. Com. v. Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230; lands are forfeited to the crown. If he Lehigh Bridge Co.v. Lehigh Coal & Nav. is outlawed for felony, he forfeits to the Co., 4 Rawle (Pa.), 9; Field on Corp. S crown all his goods and chattels, real and 154.

personal, and also the profits of his freeActs sufficient to cause a forfeiture do holds during his life; and after his death not per se produce a forfeiture. The cor- the crown is entitled to his freeholds for poration continues to exist until the sov- a year and a day, with the right of comereignty which created it shall, by proper mitting waste. Formerly, conviction for proceedings in a proper court, procure an any kind of felony caused forfeiture of adjudication of forfeiture, and enforces it. goods and chattels, both real and personal; Ormsby v. Copper-mining Co., 65 Barb. but this has been abolished. No such for(N. Y.) 360; People 2. Manhattan Co., 9 feiture in the United States. Steph. Dig. Wend. (N. Y.) 351; Bear Camp River Co. Cr. L. 39; 2 Bl. Com. 251; Wms. Real v. Woodman, 2 Me. 404: Michen v. Bank, Prop. 126; Stat. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23; 54 17 Paige (N. Y.), 118: Com. v. Com. Geo. III. c. 145: i Story U. S. Laws, 88. Bank, 28 Pa. St. 383: Murphy v. Farm- 6. See 4 Mason C. C. 174; I Washb. ers' Bank, 20 Pa. St. 415; Field on Corp. Real Prop 92. $ 154.

7. Co. Litt. 204; Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Quo warranto was originally the rem- Pick. (Mass.) 284; Fonda v. Sage, 46 Barb. edy, but the modern remedy is by infor- (N. Y.) 122; McKissick v. Pickle, 16 mation in the nature of quo warranto, or Pa. St. 140; Southard v. Railroad Co., 2 some statutory substitute. 3 Bl. Com. Dutch. (N. J.) 21; Hayden v. Stoughton, 263; Com. 2. Burrell, 7 Pa. St. 34; State 5 Pick. (Mass.) 528; Brigham v. Shattuck, 7. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190; State v. Johnson, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 306; Harrington v. Don26 Ark. 281; State 7. Stone, 25 Mo. 555; aldson, 31 Vt. 535. State 1. Railroad, 34 Wis. 197; People v. Disclaimer of Tenure.-1 Broom & HadIns. Co., I5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 386. ley Com. 703, 704.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

It now

men

13. Of Deposits.-By non-performance of the contract when the party retaining the same has fulfilled his part of the contract, and has not done anything amounting to a waiver of the right.'

14. Enforcement of.-In courts of law, equity will not enforce a forfeiture or penalty? except when exclusively essential to do justice.3 The enforcement of a forfeiture cannot be had when the law excuses the performance of the condition or covenant, or when the same is waived by the party entitled to enforce it.4

15. Of Estate. - Formerly the forfeiture of an estate was the result of the acts of the owner or tenant against the interest of the lord under the feudal law. Thus a feoffment of land by a tenant for life was a forfeiture of his estate, because it was an attempt to dispose of the reversion; but this has been abolished." occurs only on condition broken, 6 where lessee denies title of lessor' by attorning to a stranger, refusal to pay rent, or paying rent to a stranger.

16. Evidence. -Questions exposing witness to forfeiture need not be answered.9

17. Injunction to restrain forfeiture not grantable unless forfeiture excused or waived and an essential of equity jurisprudence in. tervenes, 10

18. Of Insurance Policy.—By breach of condition.11 By non-pay. 1. Er parte Burrell, L. R. 10, ch. 512; St. 379; Boyd 2. Talbert, 12 Ohio, 212; Carpenter v. Blandford, 8 B. & C. 575; Smith v. Whitback, 13 Ohio St. 471; ChapCutts v. Thodey, 13 Sim. 206; Orme v. v. Wright, 20 III. 120; Jewett 2. Brougham, 4 Moo. & Sc. 417; Roberts v. Berry, 20 N. H. 36: Gray on Restraints Massey, 13 Ves. 561; Lea v. Whitaker, on Alienation; Anderson v. Carey, 36 L. R. 8 C. P. 70; Essex v. Daniel, L. R. Ohio St. 506; Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 10 C. P. 538; Add. Cont 406.

716; Broadway v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170. 2. Paxton v. Douglass, 16 Ves. 239; 19 7. Bac. Abr. Leases; Saunders v. FreeVes. 225; Copper-mining Co. v. Ormsby, man, Dyer, 209. 47 Vt. 709; Harsburg v. Baker, i Pet. 8. Williams v. Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) (U. S.) 232; Watts v. Watts, 11 Mo. 547; 49; Jackson v. Vincent, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) Roberts v. Wilkinson, 34 Mich. 138. Nor 633; Montgomery v. Craig, 3 Dana (Ky.). aid in divesting an estate for breach of a 101; Doe v. Pittman, 2 Nev. & Man. 673; covenant or condition subsequent. Pap- Clark v. Everly, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 232; ham v. Bompfield, 1 Vern. 83; Warner v. Campbell v. Proctor, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 12. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468; Livingston v. 9. Greenl. Ev. Tompkins, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 431. Nor 10. Sinden v. Hepburn, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) by bill of discovery. Story Eq. Pl. 8 580; 668; Lambert v. Abbott, 12 How. (U. S.) Green v. Weaver, I Sim. 404.

340; Nessle v. Reese, 29 How. (N. Y.) 3. Story Eq. Pl. SS 521, 525; Brown v. 382; Coe v. Railroad Co., 10 Ohio St. 372; Vandergrift, 30 Pa. St. 142.

Barret v. Blagrave, 5 Ves. 555: Woodruff 4. Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick. (Mass.) v. Water-power Co., 2 Stockt. (N. J.) Ch. 389; Paxton v. Douglass, 16 Ves. 239. 489. A condition subsequent is excused when 11. Titus v. Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410; performance is impossible by act of God Mueller v. Ins. Co., 87 Pa. St. 399; Donaor act of the party for whose benefit it was hue v. Ins. Co., 56 Vt. 374: Ins. Co. v. created; but minority or coverture will not Grisfin, 59 Tex. 509; 4 Wait Act. & Def.

Bradstreet v. Clark, 21. Pick. 80. (Mass.) 389; Garrett v. Scouten, 3 Denio Waiver of forfeiture ensues by express (N. Y.), 334; Cross v. Carson, 8 Blackf. language, acts intending to waive (but not (Ind.) 138.

inferrible from silence); such as transac5. 2 Bl. Com. 275; by Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. tions with assured after knowledge of for.

feiture, recognizing continued validity of 6. 4 Kent Com. 106; White v. Sayre, 2 policy, or any act amounting to an estopOhio, 113; Carpenter v. Denoon, 29 Ohio pel, -- Titus v. Ins. Co., Si N. Y. 410;

excuse.

c. 106.

ment of premium on the day due-time being of the essence of the contract; ' against which equity will not grant relief,2 unless facts exist which would establish an estoppel of the insurance company.3

19. Of Policy of Fire Insurance. 4 20. Of Policy of Life Insurance.5

21. Of Lease.—The termination of the lease before the expiration of the term, by reason of the violation of some provision of the lease. 6

22. Of License.—By some act of omission or commission in violation of the privilege or the condition upon which the privilege was granted.?

Brink v. Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 108; Prentice Pa. St. 15; Mandego v. Ins. Co., 64 Iowa, 7'. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 483; Goodwin v. Ins. 134; Willcutts v. Ins. Co., 81 Ind. 300; Co., 73 N. Y. 480; Oakes v. Ins. Co., 135 People v. Ins. Co.. 92 N. Y. 105. Mass. 248; Lewis 7. Ins. Co., 63 Iowa, 4. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 73 Mo. 368; Wil. 193; Cannon v. Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 285; Ins. son v. Ins. Co., 4 R. I. 159; Ins. Co. v. Co. v. Kiitle, 39 Mich. 51;--such as de- French, 39 Me. 522; Wood on Fire Innial of liability or grounds disconnected surance, ch. 20, 21. with proof of loss; or merely attacking the 5. Bliss on Life Ins. 272; May on Life defects in the proof, without more, -Ins. Ins. ch. 15; Sansum Dig. Ins. § 900; Co. v. Sparks, 62 Ga. 187; Mosely v. Ins. Palmer v. Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 63; Seamans Co., 55 Vt. 142; O'Brien v. Ins. Co., 52 v. Ins. Co., 3 Fed Rep. 325; Pritchard v. Mich. 131: Ins. Co. v. Davidson, 67 Ga. Ins. Co., 3 C. B. (N. S.) 642; 27 L. J. C. II; Ins. Co. v. Vining, 67 Ga. 661; Ins. P. 169; Dimpson J. Ins. Co., 2 C. B. (N. Co. v. Shrimp, 16 Ill. App. 248;- -or ac- S.) 295; Want v. Blunt, 12 East, 183; Ins. cepting proof without objection,-Keeney Co. v. Harding, 27 L. J. Q. B. 301. v. Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396; 27 Am. Rep. 6. Academy of Music v. Hacket, 2 60; 4 Wait Act. & Def. 81; Williams v. Hilt. (N. Y.) 218; Clarke v. Jones, I Ins. Co., 54 Cal. 44o; Ins. Co. v. Flynn, Denio (N. Y.), 516; Clarke v. Cummings, 98 Pa. St. 627; Badger v. Ins. Co., 49 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 339; Delancy v. Ganong, Wis. 389; Levy v. Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 560; 9 N. Y. 9. Such forfeiture may be waived 27 Am. Rep. 598; Ins. Co. v. Archdea- by any act of the landlord affirming the con, 82 III. 236; s. C., 25 Am. Rep. 313; existence of the lease and recognizing Rokes v. Ins. Co., 51 Md. 512; s, C., 34 the lessee as tenant, after knowledge of Am. Rep. 32 Ins. Co. 2. Morton, 96 the forfeiture. Crawford v. Waters, 46 U. S. 234;-or any act tending to execute How. (N. Y.) 210; Carroll v. Ins. Co., the policy after knowledge of the forfeit- 10 Abb N. S. (N. Y.) 166; Bleeker v. ure, -Robertson v. Ins. Co., 88 N. Y. 541; Smith, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 530; Jackson v. Couch v. Ins. Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.), 469; Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227; Jackson Haight v. Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 51; Short v. V. Allen, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 220; Ireland v. Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 16; s. C., 43 Am. Rep. Nicholls, 46 N. Y. 413. In lease for 138; Bennett v. Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 273; years, a provision for re-entry upon fors. C., 37 Am. Rep. 501.

feiture may be omitted, the lease becom1. Giddings v. Ins. Co., 102 U. S. 108; ing void upon breach of the condition 4 Wait Act. & Def. 103.

without re-entry; but in lease for life, the 2. Klein v. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 88; Ins. lease is not void until lessor re-enters. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24: Thompson Adams on Eject. 197; Penant's Case, 3 v. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 252; Atty.-gen. v. Coke, 64; Stuyvesant v. Davis, 9 Paige Ins. Co., 93 N. Y. 70; Ins. Co. v. Dietz, (N. Y.), 431; Arosby v. Woodward, 6 52 Md. 16; Wheeler v. Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. Barn. & Cres. 519; Parmelee v. Railroad, 543; s. C., 37 Am. Rep. 594; Ins. Co. v. 6 N. Y. 74. If a house is furnished to a Lepert, 52 Tex. 504.

hired man in addition to his wages, his 3. Appleton v. Ins. Co., 59 N. H. 541; ceasing to work forfeits his right to the S. C., 47 Am. Rep. 220; Ins. Co. v. Eg- house. McGee v. Gibson, I B. Mon. gleston, 96 U. S. 572; Ins. Co.v. Pattker, (Ky.) 105. 33 Ohio St. 459; s. C., 31 Am. Kep. 555; 7. white 7. Lee, 5 Bann. & Ard. 572; Meyers v. Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 516; s. C., Dare v. Boyleston 6 Fed. Rep. 4933 29 Am. Rep. 200; Gerrard v. Ins. Co., 97 Wood v. Wells, 6 Fisher (U. S.), 383;

23. Of Marriage. —An ancient writ issuable against him who, holding by knight's service, being under age and unmarried, refused to marry the woman whom the lord offered him without disparagement, and married another. 1

24. Of Mortgage.—Occurs upon breach of any or all of the conditions.

25. Of Office.3 26. Of Patents. 4

27. For Non-payment of Rent.--Depended upon the common-law demand for rent, and re-entry. Upon breach of the covenant to pay rent, demand therefor must be made, for the actual sum due, on the day due, shortly before sunset, at the most notorious place on the land-demand in fact, although no one there; and then reentry is made, if no sufficient distress is found upon the premises, by going thereon, with witnesses, and declaring that, for want of sufficient distress and nonpayment demanded, mentioning the amount, he re-enters and repossesses himself of the premises.? This has been modified,' and, as modified, the rule generally prevails in this country.

Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, 10 Blatch. 4. Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. (U. S.) 238; (U. S.) 1; Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U. McCormick v. Seymour, 2 Blatch. (U. S.) S. 572. If the licensee continues to work 256; Walker on Patents, $ 108. under the license after forfeiture, the 5. Co. Litt. 202; Jackson v. Harrison, licensor can sue for infringement or for 17 Johns. Ch. 66; Connor v. Bradley, I promised royalties. Wood worth v. Weed, How. (U. S.) 211. i Blatch. (U.S.) 166; Cohn 2. Rubber Co., 6. Rede v. Farr, 6 M. & S. 121; Reid 3 Bann. & Ard. (U. S.) 572; Union Mfg. v. Parsons, 2 Chilt. 247; Doe d. Freeman Co. v. Lounsbury, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 125; v. Bateman, 2 B. & Ald. 168. Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatch. (U. S.) 7. Com. Dig. Rent, D, 3, 5. a; Bac. 160; Burr v. Duryee, 2 Fisher (U. S.), Ab. Rent, H; 18 Vin. Ab. 482; McCor283; Wooster v. Mig. Co., 23 Off. Gaz. mick v. Connell, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 151; 2513.

Co. Litt. 203; 2 Rolle Ab. 428; i Saund. Forfeiture for Lapse of presentation.- -1 287; Johnson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. Broom & Hadley, 705.

Ch. (N. Y.) 66; Newman 7'. Rutter, 8 1. F. N. B. 141; Reg. Orig. 163; 2 Bl. Watts (Pa.), 51; Lesley 2. Randolph, 4 Com. 70; Coke Litt. 786 824; 2 Inst. 92; Rawle (Pa.), 123; Bedford 7. McElherran, 5 Coke, 1200; 6 Coke, 706.

2 S. & R. (Pa.) 50. 2. Trimm 7. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599; 13 8. Roe v. Davis, 7 East, 363; Doe v. Am. Rep. 623; Smith v. Johns, 3 Gray Paul, 3 Carr. & P. 613; Tenny v. Moody, (Mass.), 517; Stewarı v. Crosby, 50 Me. 3 Bing. 3; 11 Eng. C. L. 12; 4 Geo. II. 130; Simmons v. Brown, 7 R. I. 427; ch. 28; Jackson v. Kipp, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) Swartz v. Leist, 13 Ohio St. 419; Power 230; Front v. Roby, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 471; v. Lester, 23 N. Y. 527; 4 Keni Com. 133; Gage v. Bates, 40 Cal. 284. Fletcher v. Holmes, 32 Ind. 497. And ac- 9. Bradley v. Connor, 5 Cranch (U. S.), cepting payment after forfeiture is a waiver 615; Boyd v. Talbert, 12 Ohio, 214; 3 of the forfeiture. West v. Crary. 47 N. Y. Wait Act. & Def. 54. This modification 423; Phelps v Hedrick, 105 Mass. 106. has been accomplished by statute in some The civil law held the thing a pledge for a States, but mostly by the courts. 3 debt; and is not paid when due, the thing Wait Act. & Def. 54; Boyd v. Talbert, 12 became the property, of the debtor. Ohio, 214. During Constantine's reign, the law was The forfeiture is saved by personal enacted making the pledge merely secu- tender of rent, after demand made, but rity, which has continued to be the law of before midnight of the day when it be. Europe. Mackeldey’s Civil Law (by Kauf- came due; and in some of the States a man), $ 349; Domai Civ. L. 3, lit. 1, S53, tender at a later date will have that effect. Story on Bailm. $ 311.

Sush v. Druse, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 313; 3. i Wait L. & Pr. 83, 87.

Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill. 211; Blackman

II.

« PreviousContinue »