$ 1181. Principles Underlying the Doctrine of Forfeiture. § 1182. Forfeitures Not Favored in Law or Equity. § 1183. Compensation and Not Forfeiture the Doctrine in Equity. § 1184. Relief Against Forfeiture Granted in Equity. § 1185. Relief Against Forfeitures Not Granted in Equity, When. § 1189. Courts of Equity Will Not Enforce a Forfeiture. § 1190. Exception to This Rule. Power to Declare a Forfeiture Strictly Construed. § 1191. § 1192. Declarations of Forfeiture. 1193. Power to Declare a Forfeiture Cannot Be Delegated. § 1194. Wrongful Attempt to Forfeit. § 1195. Notice to Grantee or Devisee of Conditions of Forfeiture. 1196. Waiver of Forfeiture. § 1197. Forfeiture on Dissolution of Corporation. § 1198. Tender of Performance of Contract. § 1199. Forfeitures Under Foreign Laws and Regulation Not Enforcible in This State. § 1200. Forfeitures for Crimes and Misdemeanors. $1201. Policy of Illinois Against Forfeitures for Conviction of Crimes. § 1202. Alienation Contrary to Law. 897 1203. Statutory Limitations Regarding Corporations. § 1204. § 1205. Restrictions on Corporations in Illinois as to Real Estate. § 1206. § 1207. Forfeiture for Breach or Non-performance of Conditions. § 1212. Conditions Construed in the Light of Surrounding Circumstances. § 1213. Time the Essence of the Contract. § 1214. Conditions as Shifting Uses. 1215. Conditions Sometimes Construed as Creating Trusts. § 1216. § 1217. § 1218. Conditions as Covenants Running with the Land. Power of Courts of Equity to Supply Defects in Deed on Conditions. § 1219. Conditions Subsequent Not Favored in Law. § 1223. Jurisdiction of Courts of Equity to Grant Relief on Breach of Condition. § 1224. Courts of Equity Will Interpose to Prevent the Breach of Negative Covenants. § 1225. Change in Character and Environments of Property Subject Conditions or Restrictions. § 1226. § 1227. § 1228. Condition for the Support, Maintenance and Care of the Grantor. § 1234. § 1235. § 1236. Persons Seized of Base Fee Generally Not Liable for Waste. Punishment for Waste. 1237. Jurisdiction of Courts of Equity to Restrain Waste. § 1180. Introduction-Title by forfeiture is the fourth method of acquiring title by purchase mentioned by Blackstone. Under the English law, lands, tenements and hereditaments might be forfeited in various degrees and by va rious means: (1) By crimes and misdemeanors; (2) By alienation contrary to law; (3) By non-presentation to a benefice, where the forfeiture is denominated a lapse; (4) by Simony; (5) By nonperformance of conditions; (6) By waste; (7) By breach of copyhold conditions; (8) By Bankruptcy. Very few of these English elements of forfeiture prevail in this country. Forfeiture Defined. The definition given by Blackstone is: "Forfeiture is a punishment annexed by law to some illegal act, or negligence, in the owner of lands, tenements and hereditaments whereby he loses his interest therein, and they go to the injured party, as a recompense for the wrong which he alone, or the public together with himself, has sustained."1 § 1181. Principles Underlying the Doctrine of Forfeiture -Before proceeding to consider the various causes of forfeiture it would be well to consider some of the principles underlying the subject. Many of these principles are recognized and enforced in courts of law as well as in courts of equity, although equity may have a more extended jurisdiction. § 1182. Forfeitures Not Favored Either in Law or Equity -Forfeitures are not regarded by courts with any special degree of favor. Where a party insists upon a forfeiture, he must make clear proof, and show that he is entitled to it. It is a harsh remedy, and he who insists upon making a declaration of forfeiture, must be held strictly within the limits of the authority which gives the right.2 They are never enforced except when definitely contracted for, and nothing has been done by the party for whose benefit they are made to mislead the other party to his injury.3 1-2 Black., 267. 2-Palmer v. Ford, 70 Ill. 369; Knights of Pythias v. Kutscher, 72 IL Ap. 462. 3-United States L. I. Co. v. Ross, 159 Ill. 476. A forfeiture should never be enforced where the language will bear a construction leading to a different result.* A right of forfeiture, although tolerated, is not favored in courts of equity. Where a party seeks to enforce such right, and by his conduct has misled others, and suffered them to acquire rights in ignorance of his right to declare a forfeiture when he is called upon to disclose the true state of facts, a court of equity will not allow him to execute a forfeiture." § 1183. Compensation and Not Forfeiture is the doctrine of equity, and courts of equity frequently relieve men who have acted fairly, though negligently, and dispensed with that which would make compliance with what the law requires, oppressive. § 1184. Relief Against Forfeitures Granted in Equity— The preventing of forfeitures is within the protecting care of courts of equity, whenever wrong or injustice will result from their enforcement, and to prevent their enforcement affords a large share of equity jurisdiction. Inasmuch as equity does not favor forfeitures but refuses to enforce them, unless it is to promote justice, and prevent the perpetration of injustice and wrong, a clear case, appealing to the principles of justice, must be made out before a forfeiture will be enforced." A court of equity will grant relief against forfeitures occasioned by fraud, accident or mistake. The cases in which courts of chancery have relieved from penalties have generally arisen under contracts in which the performance of some collateral act, like the conveyance 4-Voris v. Renshaw, 49 Ill. 425; Hartford F. I. Co. v. Walsh, 54 Ill. 164; Home F. I. Co. v. Pierce, 75 Ill. 426. 5-Fitzhugh v. Smith, 62 Ill. 486; Chadwick v. Parker, 44 Ill. 326; Carpenter v. Welty, 101 Ill. Ap. 58. 6-Andrews v. Sullivan, 7 Ill. 327; Murphy v. Lockwood, 21 Ill. 611; 7-Voris v. Renshaw, 49 Ill. 425. 203. of land, has been sought to be secured by an agreement that in the event of non-performance, a stipulated sum of money should be paid. In such cases relief will be granted against an unreasonable penalty, when full compensation can be otherwise given for the non-performance of the contract. It is well settled that where the agreement is simply one for the payment of money, a forfeiture of land incurred by its non-performance will be set aside in behalf of the defaulting party, or relieved against in any other manner made necessary by the circumstances of the case, on the payment of the debt, interest and costs, unless the complainant has debarred himself by his own conduct. This doctrine is applied where the failure has been caused by ignorance, and is not wilful.10 § 1185. Relief Against Forfeitures Not Granted in Equity -When Where the agreement creates a mere pecuniary obligation and the default arises from gross negligence, or is wilful and persistent."1 It is conceded that parties have a right to make their contracts as astringent as they please, and to make time the very essence of their contracts; and if one party without the consent of the other, allows the specific time to pass, no matter for what cause, without performing the condition, the stipulated consequences must follow.12 If parties under no disability choose to contract for a forfeiture, however hard it may seem, in the absence of any fraud or improper practices on the part of the vendor, the law can afford the vendee no relief." 13 There may be an apparent conflict in the authorities on this subject, or it may be difficult to draw a distinction between them. But it may be concluded that in the exercise by a court of equity of a power of this character, every 9-Blair v. Chamblin, 39 Ill. 521. Ill. 49. 11-Houston v. Curran, 101 Ill. Ap. 12-Chrisman v. Miller, 21 Ill. 226. 13-Brink v. Steadman, 70 Ill. 241; Morgan Park v. Gahan, 136 Ill. 515. |