Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-76-The-nature-of-conditions-subsequent.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:13:43+00:00

Document:
65. The condition precedent may be the doing of some act by the grantor or testator. Goff v. Pensenhafer, 190 111. 200, 60 N. E. 110.
A condition subsequent, like a condition precedent, may involve the doing or not doing of an act of a purely voluntary character, either by the grantee or devisee of the estate, or by another, or the occurrence or non occurrence of some event of a partially or wholly involuntary nature. In the great majority of cases, whether there is a breach of the condition, so as to enable the creator of the estate subject to the condition, or his successor in interest, to terminate the estate, depends on the action of the person in favor of whom the estate was created, or his successor in interest, in doing, or failing to do, some particular thing, and this occurs with especial frequency in the case of a lease containing a provision for "re-entry" by the lessor on a default by the lessee in some provision of the lease. But a condition subsequent may involve the doing or not doing of a particular act by the grantor, as in the case of the common law mortgage, by which the grantor is given a right to re-enter in case he, the grantor, pays a certain sum to the grantor within a given time.67 Or it may involve voluntary action only to a limited extent, as when a lease is made subject to a right of re-entry or "forfeiture" in case the lessee becomes bankrupt.
Mach. Co. v. Hanson, 101 Minn. 2G0, 118 Am. St. Rep. 623, 112 N. W. 217; Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 388. 19 Am. Dec. 515. 67. Post Sec. 599.
68. Co. Litt. 214b; 2 Blackst. Comm. 155; Challis, Real Prop. 233; Beach v. Nixon, 9 N. Y. 35; Lyford v. City of Laconia, 75 N. H. 220, 22 L. R. 3. (N. S.) 1062, 139 Am. St. Rep. 680, 72 Atl. 1085. See post Sec. 90.
70. Buckner v. Warren, 41 Ark. 532; Weller v. Brown, 160 Cal. 515, 117 Pac. 517; Thornton v. Trammell, 39 Ga. 202; Brown's Adm'rs v. Bragg, 22 Ind. 122; De Lancey v. Ganong, 9 N. Y. 9; Woodruff v. Trenton Water Power Co., 10 N. J. Eq. 489, 508; Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174, 28 Am. Dec. 391; Simmons v. Jarman, 122 N. C. 195, 29 S. E. 332; Smith v. People's Natural Gas Co., 257 Pa. 396, 101 Atl. 739; Johnson v. Gur-ley, 52 Tex. 222; But in Jinnings v. Amend. 101 Kan. 130, 165 Pac. 845, a contrary view appears to have been applied, merely in order to protect the landlord from possible loss, the lease involving the sharing of crops, and the tenant having been sentenced to imprisonment..
71. See Godfrey v. Black, 39 Kan. 193, 7 Am. St. Rep. 544, 17 Pac. 849; Maddox v. White, 4 Md. 72, 59 Am. Dec. 67; Spalding Hotel Co. v. Emerson, 69 Minn. 292, 72 N. W. 119; Orvis v. National Commercial Bank, 81 (N. Y.) App. Div. 631, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1029; Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Nielsen, 77 Neb. 868, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 494, 110 N. W. 746; Mc-Eacharn v. Colton  App. Cas. 104.
72. See Tscheider v. Biddle, Fed. Cas. No. 14210, 4 Dill. 58; Monihon v. Wakelin, 6 Ariz. 225, 56 Pac. 735; Hall v. Center, 40 Cal. 63; Worthington v. Lee, 61 Md. 530; King v. Raab, 123 Iowa 632, 99 N. W. 306; Hayes v. O'Brien, 149 111. 403, 23 L. R. A. 555, 37 N. E. 73; Arnot v. Alexander, 44 Mo. 25, 100 Am. Dec. 252; New York Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. St. George's Church, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 50; Kollock v. Scribner 98 Wis. 104, 73 N. W. 776.
73. Post Sec. 85 note 60.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.