Welling v. Strickland, 161 Mich. 235. Plaintiff brought a bill praying for the specific performance of a land contract. Plaintiff was vendee under the contract and according to the terms thereof the vendee was to pay the taxes on the premises as they became due and also to keep the property insured and in case of failure on the part of the vendee to perform these and other provisions therein contained the contract was to be immediately forfeited and notice to quit and of forfeiture were both expressly waived. The plaintiff herein did fail to pay the taxes and to keep the premises insured and the defendant declared the contract forfeited. Defendant went into possession of the premises.

The court held that the defendant was entitled to declare the contract forfeited after plaintiff failed to live up to the obligation thereof; that it was unnecessary for him to serve notice of forfeiture on plaintiff since that notice was expressly waived by the terms of the contract itself.

Scott v. Sullivan, 159 Mich. 297. Plaintiff was the vendee or licensee under a contract whereby he was to have the right to cut timber on the premises for a period of fifteen years. It was provided in the contract that the plaintiff should pay one-half of all the taxes and assessments that might be levied against the property and that time in the payment thereof should be of the essence of the contract.

Plaintiff did not pay the taxes and the defendants who were the grantors or licensors have declared the contract forfeited.

The court held that the failure of the plaintiff to pay the taxes operated as a forfeiture of the contract. The plaintiff contended that title had passed and that the payment of the taxes was merely a condition subsequent and that equity will not enforce a forfeiture. However, the court held that the payment of the taxes was not a condition subsequent, but a condition precedent; that nonperformance thereof operated as a forfeiture, especially so since time was expressly made of the essence of the contract and the plaintiff failed for three successive years to pay the taxes; defendant has made out no case entitling him to equitable relief by showing that he forgot to pay the taxes or that he delayed payment after notice of his default because it would be inconvenient for him to make the payments.