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. 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.17 On breach of pre-emption.18 Covenants are not broken by bank 1. 2 Bl. Com. 274; Stump v. Findley, 2 Rawle (Pa.), 168; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 92, 197; Wms. Real Prop. 25; 2 Sharswood Bl. Com. 121, n. 2. 1 Broom & Hadley Com. 696; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, § 4. 3. 2 Kent Com. 281, 282; 4 Kent Com. 81, 82, 424; 1 Hill Abr. ch. 4; 3 Dall. (U. S.) 486; 5 Ohio, 30. 4. 4 Kent Com. 81, 82, 424; 5 Dane Ab. 6; Wms. Real Prop. 92, 197; I Washb. Real Prop. 92, 197; 22 N. H. 500. 5. 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 88; 5 Geo. IV. c. 17; Const. U. S. art. III. § 3. 6. Hab. 270, 293. 7. Elt. Copyh. 200. 8. 2 Bl. Com. 281; Shattuck v. Lovejoy, 8 Gray (Mass.), 204. 9. O'Brien v. Doe, 6 Ala. 787; 2 Bl. Com. 281; Walker's Am. L. 299; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 454; Co. Litt. § 361; 1 Prest. Est. 578; Tudor Lead. Cas. 794. Conditions should be construed liberally so as to secure the intent of the parties, and not with the strictness applicable to common-law conditions. Adams on Eject. 176. 10. Betts v. Burch, 4 Hurl. & N. 519; Taylor v. Marcella, 1 Woods (U. S.), 302; Esmond v. Van Benschoten, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 366; Richards v. Edict, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 260; Salers v. Rolph, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 273; Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 443; s. c., 11 Am. Dec. 223. 11. Cro. Jac. 398; 3 Wait Act. 71; 2 Washb. Real Prop. 263. 12. Doe v. Shewin, 3 Camp. 134; Doe 7. Peck, I Barn. & A. 428; Price v. Worwood, 4 H. & N. 512. 13. Minshall v. Oakes, 2 H. & N. 793; Martyn v. Clue, 18 Q. B. 661; Monk 7. Noyes, I Carr. & P. 265; Goage 7. Lockwood, 2 F. & F. 115; Doe v. Jackson, 2 Stark. 293; Stanley v. Towgood, 3 Scott, 313; Myers v. Burns, 35 N. Y. 269; Doe v. Bird, 6 Carr. & P. 195; Doe v. Jones, 4 Barn. & A. 126; Few v. Perkins, L. R. 2 Exch. 92; Doe v. Lewis, 5 Ad. & Ell. 277; 3 Wait Act. 71. 14. 2 Bl. Com. 283: Coke Inst. 299; Bacon Abr. Forfeiture; Comyns Dig. Cov.; Dane Ab. Cov.; 10 Viner Abr. 371; 2 Kent Com. 318; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 118; Goodright v. Vivian. 8 East, 190; Doe v. Bond, 5 Barn. & C. 858; Phillips v. Covert, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 227; Schermerhorn v. Buell, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 422; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Livingston v. Reynolds, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 115; Co. Litt. 53, 54; Jackson v. Andrews v. 18 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 433. 15. Greenaway v. Adams, 12 Ves. 395; Roe v. Soles, I Maule & S. 297; Doe v. Laming, 4 Campb. 77; Waldroud v. Hawkins, 32 L. T. 119; Field 7. Mills, 33 N. J. Law, 254; 3 Wait Act. & Def. 71. 16. Doe v. Bevan, 3 M. & S. 353; Doe v. Hogg, 4 Dow. & R. 226; Jackson v. Silvernail, 15 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 278; Jackson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 66; Jackson v. Corliss, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 531. 17. Verplanck v. Wright, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 506. 18. Jackson v. Groat, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 285: Jackson v. Schutz, 18 Johns. Ch (N. Y.) 174; De Peyster v. Michael, 6 ruptcy, but are by voluntary assignment.1 rent.2 9. Of Corporate Rights. 3 For non-payment of 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.1 11. For Crimes.-Forfeiture for crimes seldom occurs.5 When it occurs, the State or government recovers only the title which the owner had." 12. In a Deed.7 N. Y. 467; Livingston v. Stickles, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 398. 1. Roe v. Golliers, 2 Term R. 133; Holland v. Cole, 1 H. & C. 67; Doe v. Clark, 8 East, 185; Doe v. Carew, 2 Ad. & Ell. N. S. 316; 42 Eng. C. L. 692; Doe v. David, 6 C. & P. 614. 2. See, post, 27. 3. City of Rochester v. Bronson, 41 How. (N. Y.) 78; Field on Corp. $ 442. 4. Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 210; People v. Society, etc., I Paine (U. S.), 660; State v. Bradford, 32 Vt. 50; State v. Cincin., 23 Ohio St. 445; Atty.gen. v. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 239; State v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 235; State v. Com. Bank, 33 Miss. 474: State v. Favill, 24 N. J. Law, 370; People v. Hilsdale Turnp. Co., 33 Wend. (N. Y.) 254; Terret v. Taylor, 9 Cranch (U. S.), 43. By scire facias or quo warranto. Com. v. Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230; Lehigh Bridge Co. v. Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co., 4 Rawle (Pa.), 9; Field on Corp. § 154. Acts sufficient to cause a forfeiture do not per se produce a forfeiture. The corporation continues to exist until the sovereignty which created it shall, by proper proceedings in a proper court, procure an adjudication of forfeiture, and enforces it. Ormsby v. Copper-mining Co., 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 360; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 351; Bear Camp River Co. v. Woodman, 2 Me. 404; Michen v. Bank, 17 Paige (N. Y.), 118; Com. v. Com. Bank, 28 Pa. St. 383: Murphy v. Farmers' Bank, 20 Pa. St. 415; Field on Corp. $154. Quo warranto was originally the remedy, but the modern remedy is by information in the nature of quo warranto, or some statutory substitute. 3 Bl. Com. 263; Com. v. Burrell, 7 Pa. St. 34; State 7. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190; State v. Johnson, 26 Ark. 281; State v. Stone, 25 Mo. 555; State v. Railroad, 34 Wis. 197; People v. Ins. Co., 15 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 386. In the latter case, Spencer, J., said: "An information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto is a substitute for that ancient writ, which has fallen into disuse; and the information which has superseded the old writ is defined to be a criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish the usurpation of the franchise as to oust him and seize it for the crown. It has for a long time been applied to the mere purpose of trying the civil right of seizing the franchise or ousting the wrongful possessor, the fine being nominal only." 5. Steph. Cr. Dig. 39; Foster Crim. L. 95; 1 Washb. R. Prop. 92. If a person solemnizes or assists at the marriage of any descendant of King George II. in contravention of the statute of 12 Geo. III. c. 2, his lands and goods are forfeited. If a person is outlawed for treason, his lands are forfeited to the crown. If he is outlawed for felony, he forfeits to the crown all his goods and chattels, real and personal, and also the profits of his freeholds during his life; and after his death the crown is entitled to his freeholds for a year and a day, with the right of committing waste. Formerly, conviction for any kind of felony caused a forfeiture of goods and chattels, both real and personal; but this has been abolished. No such forfeiture in the United States. Steph. Dig. Cr. L. 39; 2 Bl. Com. 251; Wms. Real Prop. 126; Stat. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23; 54 Geo. III. c. 145; 1 Story U. S. Laws, 88. 6. See 4 Mason C. C. 174; I Washb. Real Prop 92. 7. Co. Litt. 204; Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 284; Fonda v. Sage, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 122; McKissick v. Pickle, 16 Pa. St. 140; Southard v. Railroad Co., 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 21; Hayden v. Stoughton, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 528; Brigham v. Shattuck, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 306; Harrington v. Donaldson, 31 Vt. 535. Disclaimer of Tenure.-1 Broom & Hadley Com. 703, 704. 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.1 2 14. Enforcement of. In courts of law, equity will not enforce a forfeiture or penalty except when exclusively essential to do justice. 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, 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. Ex parte Burrell, L. R. 10, ch. 512; Carpenter v. Blandford, 8 B. & C. 575; Cutts . Thodey, 13 Sim. 206; Orme v. Brougham, 4 Moo. & Sc. 417; Roberts v. Massey, 13 Ves. 561; Lea v. Whitaker, L. R. 8 C. P. 70; Essex v. Daniel, L. R. 10 C. P. 538; Add. Cont 406. St. 379; Boyd v. Talbert, 12 Ohio, 212; Smith v. Whitback, 13 Ohio St. 471; Chapmen . Wright, 20 Ill. 120; Jewett v. Berry, 20 N. H. 36; Gray on Restraints on Alienation; Anderson v. Carey, 36 Ohio St. 506; Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716; Broadway v. Adams, 133 Mass. 170. 7. Bac. Abr. Leases; Saunders v. Freeman, Dyer, 209. 2. Paxton v. Douglass, 16 Ves. 239; 19 Ves. 225; Copper-mining Co. v. Ormsby, 47 Vt. 709; Harsburg v. Baker, 1 Pet. 8. Williams v. Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) (U. S.) 232; Watts v. Watts, II 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 IOI; 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 by bill of discovery. Story Eq. Pl. § 580; Green v. Weaver, I Sim. 404. 3. Story Eq. Pl. SS 521, 525; Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. St. 142. 4. Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 389; Paxton v. Douglass, 16 Ves. 239. A condition subsequent is excused when performance is impossible by act of God or act of the party for whose benefit it was created; but minority or coverture will not excuse. Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 389; Garrett v. Scouten, 3 Denio (N. Y.), 334; Cross v. Carson, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 138. 5. 2 Bl. Com. 275; by Stat. 8 & 9 Vict. C. 106. 6. 4 Kent Com. 106; White v. Sayre, 2 Ohio, 113; Carpenter 7. Denoon, 29 Ohio 10. Sinden v. Hepburn, 3 Sandf. (N.Y.) 668; Lambert v. Abbott, 12 How. (U. S.) 340; Nessle v. Reese, 29 How. (N. Y.) 382; Coe v. Railroad Co., 10 Ohio St. 372; Barret v. Blagrave, 5 Ves. 555: Woodruff v. Water-power Co., 2 Stockt. (N. J.) Ch. 489. 11. Titus v. Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410; Mueller v. Ins. Co., 87 Pa. St. 399; Donahue 7. Ins. Co., 56 Vt. 374: Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 59 Tex. 509; 4 Wait Act. & Def. 80. Waiver of forfeiture ensues by express language, acts intending to waive (but not inferrible from silence); such as transactions with assured after knowledge of forfeiture, recognizing continued validity of policy, or any act amounting to an estoppel,-Titus v. Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410; ment of premium on the day due-time being of the essence of the contract; against which equity will not grant relief, 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 v. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 483; Goodwin v. Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 480; Oakes v. Ins. Co., 135 Mass. 248; Lewis 7. Ins. Co., 63 Iowa, 193; Cannon . Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 285; Ins. Co. v. Kittle, 39 Mich. 51;-such as denial of liability or grounds disconnected with proof of loss; or merely attacking the defects in the proof, without more,-Ins. Co. v. Sparks, 62 Ga. 187; Mosely v. Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142; O'Brien v. Ins. Co., 52 Mich. 131: Ins. Co. v. Davidson, 67 Ga. 11; Ins. Co. v. Vining, 67 Ga. 661; Ins. Co. v. Shrimp, 16 Ill. App. 248;- -or accepting proof without objection,-Keeney v. Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396; 27 Am. Rep. 60; 4 Wait Act. & Def. 81; Williams v. Ins. Co., 54 Cal. 440; Ins. Co. v. Flynn, 98 Pa. St. 627; Badger v. Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 389; Levy v. Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 560; 27 Am. Rep. 598; Ins. Co. v. Archdeacon, 82 Ill. 236; s. c., 25 Am. Rep. 313; Rokes v. Ins. Co., 51 Md. 512; s. c., 34 Am. Rep. 323; Ins. Co. 2. Morton, 96 U. S. 234; or any act tending to execute the policy after knowledge of the forfeiture,-Robertson v. Ins. Co., 88 N. Y. 541; Couch v. Ins. Co., 25 Hun (N. Y.), 469; Haight v. Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 51; Short v. Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 16; s. c., 43 Am. Rep. 138; Bennett v. Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 273; s. c., 37 Am. Rep. 501. 1. Giddings v. Ins. Co., 102 U. S. 108; 4 Wait Act. & Def. 103. 2. Klein v. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 88; Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24: Thompson v. Ins. Co., 104 Ú. S. 252; Atty.-gen. v. Ins. Co., 93 N. Y. 70; Ins. Co. v. Dietz, 52 Md. 16; Wheeler v. Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. 543; S. C., 37 Am. Rep. 594; Ins. Co. v. Lepert, 52 Tex. 504. 3. Appleton v. Ins. Co., 59 N. H. 541; s. c., 47 Am. Rep. 220; Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 572; Ins. Co. v. Pattker, 33 Ohio St. 459; s. c., 31 Am. Rep. 555; Meyers v. Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 516; s. c., 29 Am. Rep. 200; Gerrard v. Ins. Co., 97 Pa. St. 15; Mandego v. Ins. Co., 64 Iowa, 134; Willcutts v. Ins. Co., 81 Ind. 300; People v. Ins. Co.. 92 N. Y. 105. 4. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 73 Mo. 368; Wilson v. Ins. Co., 4 R. I. 159; Ins. Co. v. French, 39 Me. 522; Wood on Fire Insurance, ch. 20, 21. 5. Bliss on Life Ins. 272; May on Life Ins. ch. 15; Sansum Dig. Ins. § 900; Palmer v. Ins. Co., 84 N. Y. 63; Seamans v. Ins. Co., 3 Fed Rep. 325; Pritchard v. Ins. Co., 3 Č. B. (N. S.) 642; 27 L. J. C. P. 169; Dimpson v. Ins. Co., 2 C. B. (N. S.) 295; Want v. Blunt, 12 East, 183; Ins. Co. v. Harding, 27 L. J. Q. B. 301. 6. Academy of Music v. Hacket, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 218; Clarke v. Jones, I Denio (N. Y.), 516; Clarke v. Cummings, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 339; Delancy v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9. Such forfeiture may be waived by any act of the landlord affirming the existence of the lease and recognizing the lessee as tenant, after knowledge of the forfeiture. Crawford v. Waters, 46 How. (N. Y.) 210; Carroll v. Ins. Co., IO Abb N. S. (N. Y.) 166; Bleeker v. Smith, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 530; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 227; Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 220; Ireland v. Nicholls, 46 N. Y. 413. In lease for years, a provision for re-entry upon forfeiture may be omitted, the lease becoming void upon breach of the condition without re-entry; but in lease for life, the lease is not void until lessor re-enters. Adams on Eject. 197; Penant's Case, 3 Coke, 64; Stuyvesant v. Davis, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 431; Arnsby v. Woodward, 6 Barn. & Cres. 519; Parmelee v. Railroad, 6 N. Y. 74. If a house is furnished to a hired man in addition to his wages, his ceasing to work forfeits his right to the house. McGee v. Gibson, 1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 105. 7. White v. Lee, 5 Bann. & Ard. 572; Dare v. Boyleston 6 Fed. Rep. 493; 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 dispar agement, and married another.1 24. Of Mortgage.-Occurs upon breach of any or all of the conditions.2 25. Of Office.3 26. Of Patents.4 6 27. For Non-payment of Rent.-Depended upon the common-law demand for rent,5 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.❞ .7 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. Woodworth v. Weed, How. (U. S.) 211. i Blatch. (U.S.) 166; Cohn 7. Rubber Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. (U. S.) 572; Union Mfg. Co. v. Lounsbury, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 125; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatch. (U. S.) 160; Burr v. Duryee, 2 Fisher (U. S.), 283; Wooster v. Mfg. Co., 23 Off. Gaz. 2513. Forfeiture for Lapse of presentation.- -1 Broom & Hadley, 705. 1. F. N. B. 141; Reg. Orig. 163; 2 Bl. Com. 70; Coke Litt. 78 82; 2 Inst. 92; 5 Coke. 126; 6 Coke, 70o. 6. Rede v. Farr, 6 M. & S. 121; Reid v. Parsons, 2 Chitt. 247; Doe d. Freeman v. Bateman, 2 B. & Ald. 168. 7. Com. Dig. Rent, D. 3, 5. a; Bac. Ab. Rent, H; 18 Vin. Ab. 482; McCormick v. Connell, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 151; Co. Litt. 203; 2 Rolle Ab. 428; 1 Saund. 287; Johnson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 66; Newman 7. Rutter, 8 Watts (Pa.), 51; Lesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle (Pa.), 123; Bedford v. McElherran, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 50. 8. Roe v. Davis, 7 East, 363; Doe v. Paul, 3 Carr. & P. 613; Tenny v. Moody, 3 Bing. 3; 11 Eng. C. L. 12; 4 Geo. II. ch. 28; Jackson v. Kipp, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 230; Front v. Roby, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 471; Gage v. Bates, 40 Cal. 284. 2. Trimm v. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599; 13 Am. Rep. 623; Smith v. Johns, 3 Gray (Mass.), 517; Stewart v. Crosby, 50 Me. 130; Simmons v. Brown, 7 R. I. 427; Swartz v. Leist, 13 Ohio St. 419; Power v. Lester, 23 N. Y. 527; 4 Kent Com. 133; 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. 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 if 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; Domat Civ. L. 3, tit. 1, § 3, tender at a later date will have that effect. II. Story on Bailm. § 311. Sush v. Druse, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 313; Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill. 211; Blackman 3. I Wait L. & Pr. 83, 87. |