Case Name: Hulett v. Fairbanks
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 40 Ohio St. 233
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hulett v. Fairbanks.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 40
Pages: 233–247

Head Matter:
Hulett v. Fairbanks.
1. Competent parties may make “ time ” of the “ essence of the contract,” and enforce a forfeiture, as stipulated, in case of a default; but when • a failure to perform is occasioned by erroneous information on a ma7 terial matter given by the agent of tlie party not in default, relief against tlic forfeiture should be granted.
2. Joint purchasers of land intended to he disposed of for their joint profit, are partners in the venture.
8. If by such contract of purchase a failure to pay their joint and several note for a part of the purchase money by a day certain will work a forfeiture of their rights, eacli is bound in good faith to punctually pay his share to the extent of his ability.
4. If two of such co-obligors having the means to promptly pay their sha're of such a note (without notice to their co-partners of an intent to not pay said share), in order to force the forfeiture, place said sum, (and more), in the hands of a third party to enable him to take advantage of the forfeiture and purchase the rights so forfeited, they commit a fraud upon their co-obligors.
5. If a third party, with knowledge of the contract of purchase, of the relations of said co-obligors and of the, facts as to said money, receives the same and uses it to carry the plan into effect, he is so far a party to the fraud that he cannot hold the rights so purchased against the co-obligors so defrauded.
Error to the District Court of Lake County.
On the 9fch of June, A. D. 1874, by a writing of that date, Thaddeus, Horace and Franklin Fairbanks, of St. Johnsbury, Vt., agreed to sell and convey to William E. Hulett; George H. Hulett, John Cunningham, all of Lake county, Ohio, and Albert Cunningham, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, several thousand acres of pine lands, situate in the county of Manistee, in the state of Michigan, for $65,698. The purchasers agreed to pay said sum in installments as follows, viz.: cash on day of contract, $10,000; on October 1, 1874, $11,899; on October 1, 1875, $14,599.61; on October 1,1876, $14,599.61; and on October 1,1877, $14,599.61. For the deferred payments they gave their joint and several notes, payable to order of E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., (a firm composed of the vendors,) in current funds, at the Importers and Traders Bank, New York, “with interest annually at 7 per cent.” The first note read, “ with interest at seven per cent, per annum.” The purchasers were to pay all taxes on the lands falling due after date of contract, but were not to cut, or permit to be cut and carried away, any timber from the land, without having, beforehand, obtained the written consent of the vendors. To do so without such consent would work a forfeiture of the rights of the pur chasers. The deed was to be made when the payment of the purchase money was completed. The contract contained a stipulation reading thus:
Third. — That the parties of the second part shall pay each and every of the said promissory notes at the time they severally become due and payable, according to the tenor and effect thereof. And it is expressly stipulated and agreed that the time of the payment of said notes is of the essence of this agreement, and that if default in the payment of either of said notes at maturity shall be made, the said parties of the first part may, at their option, at any time after the happening of such default, and before receiving another payment, declare a forfeiture of the rights of the parties of the second part under this agreement, either by notice to be given to the parties of the second part, or to any person who may be found in the possession or occupancy of said premises, or any part thereof, or by written notice to be deposited in the post-office at St. Johnsbury, Vermont, directed to the said parties of the second part, each individual separateljq at Unionville, in the county of Lake, and state of Ohio, and to Charles F. Ruggles, at the city of Manistee, in the county of Manistee, and state of Michigan; and thirty days after the time of giving or making such notice, all the rights of the parties of the second part, under this agreement, either at law or in equity, shall wholly and forever cease and determine (unless they shall in the meantime have paid all arrears, that may then be due) ; and thereupon such of said notes as remain unpaid, shall (excepting as is hereinafter provided) be void, and shall be delivered up to the parties of the second part on demand made by them therefor, at the office of the'paxties of the first part in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, where the same are made payable; but the party of the first part shall not be bound to refund any moneys which may have been paid upon this agreement, or upon said notes.
This purchase was made for the purpose of jointly selling again at a profit, and dividing the proceeds. To further this object, on June 12, 1874, by another writing, said purchasers associated with themselves one Charles F. Ruggles, who resided in said county of Manistee, and had experience in such land speculations. Under certain circumstances he was to gain a right to one-half of the profits. This contract gave to Ruggles a right, in case the others should fail, or neglect, to pay'any of said notes at the exact time when it should fall due, to pay such note and receive an extended interest in said lands proportionate to such payment. Ruggles also agreed as follows:
1st. That he will bear one-half of the expenses arising from the care of above-mentioned lands, or the sale of the timber therefrom, or the collecting therefor, or the book-« keeping arising from a sale of a part or the whole of said timber, and that he will, at his own and sole expense, do all the bookkeeping connected with the lands, aside from a sale of the timber as above."
2d. That he will endeavor to make a sale of the above-mentioned lands and the timber thereon, at the largest advancement possible upon the price paid therefor, and should he receive an offer therefor, he will communicate the same, to the parties of the first part; and should a sale be made of the whole or any part thereof, he will draw the contract or contracts therefor, and that he will, if desired, superintend the collecting therefor, and any bookkeeping necessary in the above transaction. Further, that he will, if desired, have the books-kept in his office in Manistee, Michigan, by one of his bookkeepers, and that for the same the actual cost shall be by him received.
3d. That should there- be a loss upon the above investment, he will stand one-half of the said loss. '
The Huletts and’ Cunninghams punctually made all the payments that fell due prior to October 1, 1876, including interest to October 1, 1875, on the remaining notes, the Huletts paying the half of all that was so paid.
In July, 1876, George H. Hulett visited the lands, and learned facts that caused him to believe that Ruggles was not fulfilling* his duties under their contract; that he'and. Albert Cunningham had united in speculations in other lands, and were pushing those separate interests to the prejudice of the common venture. Said John Cunningham was Albert’s father. Ruggles had put no money into the venture. George Hulett, on his return to Ohio, reported his discoveries to John Cunningham, who told him that Albert could not break with Ruggles. Hulett then urged that Ruggles ought to put in money so as to secure his faithful attention to the common interest; declared that they (the Huletts) would not pay any more money to the Fairbanks until the firm property was in charge of a' receiver, and that they would begin suit for that purpose. John Cunningham urged that such a course would cause loss to them all, and remonstrated against it, but finally said that if the Huletts would not apply for a receiver he (John) would pay one-half of the sum to fall due October 1, 1876, and Ruggles and Albert would provide.for the other half. The Huletts did not sue; John Cunningham deposited $8,326.03 at the Importers and Traders National Bank, New York, in readiness to pay one-lialf of the sum then due, but as the Huletts furnished no money the note was protested. On November 2, 1876, D. P. Hall, agent for the Fairbanks, presented the note to the several makers at their homes in Ohio, and, payment being refused, he served all of them and Ruggles with the contract notice, and unless payment should be made on or before December 2, 1876, the forfeiture under stipulation “third” would take effect. On the morning of November 2,1876, George Hulett, in Ruggles’s presence, told Hall that they (the Huletts) did not intend to pay any part of the principal and interest then due, but afterwards, on the- same day, fully informed Hall of their wish to induce Ruggles and the Cunninghams to pay that note for the reasons herein-before stated, and that they (the Huletts) did not intend to let the default become complete: that they had the means to pay, and would pay, if necessary to prevent the forfeiture. He also, in the same conversation, asked Hall to inform him of any new move, or change, that should occur in the matter, which Hall promised him he would do.
Hall then entered the east-bound train at Unionville, in Lake county. Ruggles got on the same train at Geneva, and at Buffalo they executed a contract reading thus:
“ Buffalo, N. Y., Nov. 2, 1876.
“This agreement, made this day between Charles F. Ruggles on the part and for Harvey J. Nettleton, of Ashtabula, Ohio, of the one part, and D. P. Hall on the part and for E. & T. Fairbanks & Go., of St. Johnsbury, Vermont, of the other part, witnesseth: That whereas, on the 9th day of June, 1874, the said Fairbanks & Co. executed a land contract for the sale of certain pine lands in the county of Manistee and state of Michigan, to William E. Hulett and George Hulett and John Cunningham, all of Unionville, Ohio, and Albert Cunningham, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Reference is hereby had to said land contract for full and particular description of the same. And, whereas, said Huletts and Cunninghams have let one of their notes be protested,' contrary to the terms and tenor of said contract, and the same now remains unpaid and overdue more than one month; and, whereas, it is distinctly stated and understood that if the parties do not make their payments promptly when due, that they forfeit all former payments made upon said contract, in thirty days from the time the said Fairbanks & Co. shall give them a written notice to that effect; and, whereas, by the terms of said contract, thirty days is granted to said parties to make said pay: ments, with the interest, costs and expenses attending the same; and, whereas, if said payments are not made, said bond will be cancelled and the said property revert to the said E. & T. Fairbanks & Co.; now, it is hereby agreed- by the parties to this contract, that if the said Harvey J. Nettleton shall deposit to the credit of Fairbanks & Co., of New York city, in the Importers’ and Traders’ National Bank, in the city of New York, on or before the 10th day of November, 1876, the sum of sixteen thousand eight hundred and forty-eight and dollars, and shall also, on or before the 10th day.of December, 1876, give to the said E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., his promissory note payable October 1st, 1877, for’ the sum of fourteen thousand five hundred ninety-nine and dollars, and interest at 7 per cent., from October 1st, 1876. Then, in the event said Huletts’ and Cunninghams’ notes are not paid within thirty days, as before stated, the said E. & T. Fairbanks & Co. agree to deed, with good and valid title, said lands described in said contract, to said Nettleton, or his order, on condition that he secures to them, the said E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., the note herein described by mortgage on said lands, reserving the right to cut and remove not more than one-third of the pine timber from said land until said note and interest is .paid. Should said Huletts and Cunninghams pay the overdue note and interest within thirty days now given them by written notice, then, and in that case the said Fairbanks & Co. are to refund and deposit in said Importers’ and Traders’ National Bank, to the credit of the said Nettleton, or his order, all of said deposit made by him (except seventy-five and dollars, which is for the time and expenses of said Hall in this business), together with the interest on the same at 7 per cent., and upon such deposit being made, this agreement is to be returned free of expense to said Hall, and be null and void.
“ D. P. Hall, for E. & T. Fairbanks & Co.
“Charles F. Ruggles, for II. J. Nettleton.
“Dated at Buffalo, Nov. 2, 1876.”
Nettleton was the father-in-law of Albert Cunningham. Ruggles and Albert were visiting at his house, and while Nettleton and Ruggles were at the barn harnessing a team for Albert and Ruggles to use, Nettleton “told Mr. Ruggles that if the lands went back to the Fairbanks he might buy them for (him) me if he could buy them for $40,000 or less.” This occurred before Ruggles and Hall had met George Hulett. On November 3, Ruggles handed the Buffalo contract to Nettleton, at the home of the latter, and went awaju Nettleton showed the contract to Albert, who asked how much money he needed. Nettleton said he had $4,000, and Albert “ said he would go up to his father’s and see what they could do about raising it,” and returning, “said they had concluded to let me (Nettleton) have what money they had, and could get the rest at the Geneva Bank.” On November 4, 1876, Nettleton remitted to the Importers’ and Traders’ National Bank, New York, $16,848.64 to credit of “Fairbanks & Co.” 6f this sum the Cunninghams furnished $12,600. Half of it was by a transfer of .the $8,326.08, which Nettleton knew was on deposit to meet their half of the October payment to Fairbanks & Co. John Cunningham had borrowed the $12,600 from the bank at Geneva, Ohio, getting the $8,826.03 at the beginning of October, and the remainder on November-4. Nettleton gave his note to John and Albert for the $12,600, dated November 4, 1876, payable at any time within live years, with interest at ten per cent. On November 13, Hall (the agent of the Fairbanks) wrote to the Iluletts as follows:
Linden, Yt., Nov. 13, 1876.
Or. II. Hulett and Bro., TJnionville, Ohio :
Gents : I have been informed from the Importers’ and Traders’ Bank, through Fairbanks & Co., that Mr. Cunningham has withdrawn his money from the bank. I write you that you can see him and make arrangements to meet the notes on or before the 2d day of December, in order to save your land. I thought it would be well for you to know it, and not be disappointed when the day comes.
Yours truly, ' D. P. II.
You will please let this be confidential between us.
The Iluletts complied with Hall’s request to keep said information “confidential,” but asked John Cunningham (about November 18) what they (the Cunninghams and Ruggles) were going to do as to the payment required by December 2, and were told that they (the C.’s and R.) had paid it.
■ On December 2, 1876, during banking hours, George Hulett, having enough currency and drafts to pay either the whole (as he testified) or the half (as the defendants claim) of the required payment at said New York bank, said to the cashier “ that it was the last day on which payment could be made,” and asked “whether a remittance had been sent from Ohio to pay the note. The cashier informed him “that a remittance of $16,848.64 had been received by us (the bank) from Harvey J. Nettleton, for the credit of Fairbanks & Co.,” of New York, and the cashier suggested that he call 'on that firm. (It consisted of the vendors of the land and a Mr. Hatch.) Hulett called there, and Hatch told him that “ Messrs. E. & T. Fairbanks, or the First National Bank of St. Johnsbury, had received the money from another source for the amount of the note and interest, and that his (Hatch') impression was that the money was received from the Cunninghams.”
There was yet time (after the talk with Hatch) to make payment at the bank, but as this information satisfied Hulett that the Cunninghams had paid the note, he made no payment. Later on the Huletts learned the facts about the Nettleton contract, and brought an action in Lake county common pleas against the Fairbanks, the Cunning-hams and Nettleton; having beforehand tendered to Nettle-ton the full sum paid by him to the Fairbanks, with the interest thereon .to the day of tender; and to the Fairbanks the balance due them under the original contract’; and asked a decree for a conveyance according to the contract of June 9, 1874, and other relief, all in due form. Their petition charged Nettleton and the Cunninghams with conspiring to effect and effecting a pretended forfeiture by fraudulent statements and acts, so as to acquire for their benefit the Huletts’ share of the land, aud added other averments that we need not notice. Nettleton’s answer denied all fraud, and claimed a fair purchase by him for his own use. John Cunningham, by answer, denied the averments affecting him, and averred due forfeiture of the contract and a valid purchase by Nettleton. Albert Cunningham did not answer. The Huletts’ reply denied all new matter in Nettleton’s answer. The answer of the Fairbanks claimed a valid forfeiture, but brought into court two deeds — one to Nettleton — the other to the original purchasers, and offered to deliver either as the court should order, upon payment of the balance due to them.
A trial in the common pleas resulted in a decree for the plaintiffs. The defendant Nettleton appealed, and the district court made a decree in his favor. The Huletts ask a reversal of said decree, assigning for cause error in excluding evidence, and that the findings and judgment were not supported by the evidence and against the law.
W. W. Boynton, A. L. Tinker and Alvord § Alvord, for plaintiffs in error.
1. Forfeitures are never favored in law. There are no presumptions in favor of him who asserts a right or title bjr forfeiture. Smith v. Whitbeck, 13 Ohio St., 477; West et al. v. Ins. Co., 27 Ohio St., 13; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 54 111., 164; Home Ins. Co. v. Pierce, 75 111., 426; Palmer v. Ford, 70 111., 369; Button v. Schroyer, 5 Wis., 598; Bogan v. Walker, 2 Finney (Wis.), 463; Clarke v. Brake, 3 Pinney, 228; Fay v. Lovejoy, 20 Wis., 424.
2. Where a party seeks to work a forfeiture of a contract or an estate, whether it be created by will, deed, contract, or lease, for the non-performancé of a condition upon which it is held, or the non-payment of money due, there must be a demand for the performance of the condition or a demand for the payment of the precise sum due, or it will not cause a forfeiture of the estate. Smith v. Whitbeck, 13 Ohio St., 471; Benton v. White, 26 Wis., 679-685; Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick., 384-396; 24 Wendell, 106; Sargeant Williams’ notes to 1 Saunders, 286, (note 16); 1 American Law Register, new series, 353 to 362; Lessee of Boyd v. Talbot, 12 Ohio Rep., 214; Carner v. Bradley and wife, 1 Howard (U. S.), 211, top paging, 574; Jackson v. Harrison, 17 Johnson, 66; Van Bensalaer v. Jewett, 2 Comstock, 141; 3 Wait’s Actions and Defenses, page 54; Boe v. Bavis, 7 East, 363; Jackson v. Kipp, 3 Wendell, 230; McCormick v. Cornell, 6 Serg. and Ravvle, 151; Prout v. Roly, 15 WaR lace, 471; Cage v. Bates, 40 California Rep., 384; Hosford v. Bullard, 39 N. Y., 147; People ex. rel. v. Dudley, 58 N. Y., 323; Woods’ Landlord and Tenant, 743-745, (note 2); Coke’s Littleton, 201; Taylor’s Landlord and Tenant, § 493, (note 6); Doe ex. dem., Wheeldon v. Paul, 3 Carrington & Payne, 613.
4. When a forfeiture is the result of accident or mistake of -facts, especially when the mistake arises from false appearances created by the party seeking to avail hims.elf of the right of forfeiture, or 'in case a vendee is prevented from performing by the fault of the vendor, a court of . equity will excuse performance and will relieve against the forfeiture. Potter v. Tuttle, 22 Conn., 512; Pomeroy on Contracts, § 337; Snyder v. Spaulding, 57 111., 480, 487; Savage v. Bocksapp, 18 Vesey, 335; 2 Addison on Contracts, 1194, bottom paging, 798, Abbot’s Edition, 1883; United States v. Peck, 102 U. S., 64; Fleming v. Cillert, 3 Johnson’s Report, 527; Dearborn v. Cross, 7 Cowen, 48; 1 Wheaton on Contracts, § 312, 603 and 604; Pollock’s Principles of Contracts, 371; Pomeroy on Specific Performance, §§ 405 and 406; Fry on Spe. Per., § 740; Minert v. Eme-, rick, 6 Wis., 354; Kugler v. Wiseman, 20 Ohio', 361; Dowry v. Barelli, 21 Ohio St., 324; Henry v. Tupper, 29 Vermont, 358; Livingstone v. Tompkins, 4 Johns’ Chan., 431; Rolfe v. Harris, 2 Price, 207; Bracebridge v. Buckley, 2 Price, 200; 2 Strong Eq. Jur., § 1323; Borden v. Borden, 5 Mass., 67 ; navigation Co. v. Wilcox, 7 Jones (N. C.), 481; Jones y.-Walker, 13' B. Monroe, 163.
Estep, Dickey f Squire, and Theo. Hall, for defendants in error.
We may admit that the contract is strict, but claim that such contracts are common in the United States, and have, frequently been adjudicated upon. We claim that at law,. the time of. performance is a material part of a contract. ■ Non-performance at the very day, is always to be .held as a breach. There is no other rule applicable except the one- named in the contract. In equity the same rule applies» •where in the agreement the parties have contemplated that time would be material, and it influenced their action or interests. In the present case, the parties were not only looking'to the possibility of the non-performance according to the letter of the agreement, but they made an express agreement providing for that contingency; they did not leave the law to determine the consequence of a default, but made a law for themselves, on that subject, by an express provision in the body of their agreement. Instead of providing that the performance might be made at a future date, and compensation made in damages for the delay, the parties provided that in case of default in making payments,-Fairbanks might avoid the contract or elect to avoid it. Stenson v. Dawson, 20 Howard, 461; Ilansboro v. Peek, 5 Wall, 497; Ketchum, v. Diversion, 13 Johns., 358; Truesdell v. Ward, 24 Mich., 118; Miller v. Phillips, 31 Pa. St., 218; Wells v. Smith, 2 Edwards, ch. 78; Christman v. Miller, 21 111., 227; Campbell v. Sicks, 19 Ohio St., 433; 7 Ohio, pt. 2, p. 97; Curby v. Sarrison, 2 Ohio St., 326; 21 Wallace, 303; 11 How. Pr., 279; 43 Cal., 359; 22 Conn., 572; Pomeroy on Sp. Per., §§ 399, 401.

Opinion:
Granger, C. J.
Many questions have been ably argued by counsel, but we think the application of well settled principles of equity to facts about which there is little or no conflict in the evidence, furnishes a plain solution of the case.
The Huletts and Cunninghams were partners in the venture in the Manistee land. They bought jointly for the purpose of jointly selling and dividing the profits. While there was no complete copartnership, the nature of their venture was such that they owed to each other and to the business the same obligations as partners in an ordinary firm. For convenience, I may occasionally use the words "firm" and "partnership," in referring to them.
Notwithstanding some suspicions and differences, and the refusal of the Huletts to pay their half of the money due to the Fairbanks on October 1st, 1876, the Cunninghams in no manner notified tbe Pluletts of any purpose, by them, to terminate their said relations under the contract, or that they (the Cunninghams) would not, on or before December 2, 1876, pay their half of the sum required to prevent a forfeiture. If the Huletts were in fault in their complaints against Albert Cunningham and Ruggles, and in their refusal to pay their share of the October dues, the Cunninghams had a right to give notice that they refused to longer hold their contract relation towards -them, and would make no further payments on the contract, and to act accordingly.
But they did not so refuse. They gave no notice to the Huletts of any purpose to omit the payment of their share of the sum required to prevent the forfeiture. The relation of partners in the venture continued, and with it their obligation to make said payment if they had the means. Their money was actually on deposit at the place of payment; hence their ability was undoubted. Substantially the facts show two partners who secretly resolved to omit a payment that their contract (as between them and their copartners) bound them to make, and actively aided a third party to purchase the partnership property at a great loss to the partnership. In substance, their arrangement .with Nettle-ton was an agreement by them to so act, as to force a forfeiture of the joint interest in the Manistee lands, and to place in his hands the money that it was their duty to pay upon the joint debt, so that with it he could buy the lands comprising their joint venture without any consideration paid to or for the partnership. Plainly, such action by the Cunninghams was a fraud upon the Huletts. If the declarations of John Cunningham were in evidence it would seem that he represented to the Huletts, first, that the money would be paid, and afterwards that it had been paid. But we arrive at our conclusions without treating these declarations as evidence against Nettleton, and leaving their admissibility undetermined.
Nettleton knew the terms of the contract of June-9, 1874; the' partnership relation of the parties, and that the money loaned to him by the Cunninghams was in the New York bank for the purpose of paying the Cunninghams' share of the sum due. He of course knew that by lending it to him the Cunninghams joined him in an effort to force the forfeiture. We think there can be no doubt that he was, in effect, conspiring with the two Cunninghams to defraud their associates in the venture. Whether he was to enjoy all the fruit of the fraud, or to share it with them, is immaterial. Equity will not permit him to hold the fruit against the defrauded parties. As against him the Huletts are entitled to a decree restoring their lands upon payment of the unpaid purchase money and interest.
It remains to consider the case as against the Messrs. Fairbanks. Under the contract they had a right to enforce a forfeiture in ease of a default. On November 2, 1876, by their agent Hall, they served the notice under which, unless the sum due should be paid on or before December 2,1876, the purchasers' rights in the land would end. Several matters are urged against the validity of the forfeiture, but we will notice only one. Hall, the agent, on Nove'mber 2, was told by Hulett that he intended to pay in time to prevent a forfeiture; that he wished to induce the Cunninghams and Ruggles to make the payment, but if they did not he and his brother would. Having fully informed Hall as to his plans, he asked him, in case of any new move or change, to inform him of it. This Hall promised to do.
Knowing that the Huletts hoped to cause the Cunning hams and Ruggles to pay $16,848.64 at the Importers and Traders Bank, in New York city, to the credit of the Fairbanks, on the October note, &e., Hall secretly so arranged that precisely that sum was paid at said bank to the credit of said Fairbanks early in November. Instead of reporting this to Hulett, he wrote the letter of November 18, stating only that the money was withdrawn, and requesting Hulett to treat the intelligence as confidential. When Hulett called at the bank the cashier told him that $16,848.64 had been remitted by Nettleton and credited to the Fairbanks on November 10, 1876, and referred him to the New York firm of "Fairbanks & Co." for full information, Hulett followed up the reference, and was told by Hatch that " the Messrs. E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., or the First National Bank of St. Johnsbury, had received the money from another source for the amount of the note aqd interest." Hatch added, that it was his impression that the money was received from the Cunninghams.
Being wholly ignorant of the Nettleton contract Hulett naturally believed that the note had been paid through the Cunninghams, as he desired, and he therefore did not pay it.
The cashier represented the Fairbanks. As he referred Hulett to the firm of which Hatch was a member, the information given by Hatch was, in effect, given by the cashier. As Hall knew Hulett's plans and had full re§son to expect such inquiry by Hulett at the bank, these occurrences may have been anticipated by him. They were the work of Hall and the cashier, each of whom represented the Messrs. Fairbanks. Through them erroneous information on a material matter was given to Hulett. Because of it, he made no payment. Recognizing their contract right to enforce a forfeiture in a proper case, a court having equity powers should not hesitate to relieve against it where they so contributed to occasion the default.
Judgment of the district court reversed, and decree for plaintiffs.