RESERVATION OF TITLE UNTIL PAYMENT 155 



made at one time or by installments. 1 In such a contract 

 a failure of the vendee to make payment in the manner re- 

 quired by the contract may result in a forfeiture of the con- 

 tract, but when ground for forfeiture has arisen, the right 

 will be waived by a subsequent acquiescence of the vendor 

 in expenditures by the .vendee in connection with the con- 

 tract, 2 and this waiver may be made by parol. 3 In a 

 case in which the contract gave the vendee the power to sell 

 the timber a Michigan court held that title passed to the one 

 purchasing from the vendee 4 and in the same state the ex- 

 ecution by the vendor of a bill of sale with no security but 

 the notes of the assignee of the original vendee was held to 

 effect a transfer of the title irrespective of the provisions in 

 the original executory contract and the bill of sale as to title 

 passing only after full payment. 5 Even though a pro- 

 vision in a contract requiring full payment before any tim- 

 ber is cut is not complied with, a subsequent full perform- 

 ance or tender of full performance will vest the legal title to 

 the timber in the purchaser, 6 if no forfeiture were declared 

 previous to the performance or tender of performance. If 

 after partial payment is made a default occurs and the vendor 

 takes possession of timber cut and makes expenditures in 

 delivering the same to market, he is entitled to repayment 

 of such expenses upon a subsequent completion of the con- 

 tract by the vendee. 7 Unless there is an express agree- 

 ment to that effect the vendor has no lien on timber cut for 

 the purchase price. 8 Such a lien exists where the con- 



1. Lbr. Co. v. Pretorious 82 Ark. 347, 101 S. W. 733; Winders v. Kenan, 161 N. C. 



628, 77 S. E. 687. McMurphy v. Garland, 47 N. H. 316; Tyler v. Strang 21 g, 

 Barb. (N. Y.) 198; Comstock v. Smith, 23 Me. 202; Lillie v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 

 198, 22 N. W. 467; See Emersonv. Fisk, 6 Me. 200, 19 Am. Dec. 206; Wilkie 

 v. Day, 141 Mass. 68, 6 N. E. 542; Briggs Iron Co. v. Richardson, 4 Allen 

 371; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613. In re Mfg. Co. 166 Fed. 585. 



2. Buskirk v. Peck, 57 W. Va. 360, 50 S. W. 432; See Garrison v. Glass, 139 Ala. 



512, 36 So. 725; Sears v. Ohler, (Ky.) 139 S. W. 759; Rowe v. Charles, (Ky.) 

 121 S. W. 697; Hardy v. Ward, 150 N. C. 385, 64 S. E. 171; Hill v. Lbr. Co. 

 90 S. C. 176, 72 S. E. 1085; Dev. Co. v. Lbr. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 

 1015. 



3. March v. Bellew, 45 Wis. 36. 



4. Artman v. Shaw, 37 Mich. 448. 



5. In re Ortman, 80 Mich. 67, 45 N. W. 63; Cf. Lillibridge v. Sartwell, 8 Pa. St. 523. 



6. Haven v. Beidler Mfg. Co., 40 Mich. 286; See Burgett v. Bissell, 14 Barb. (N. 



Y.) 638. 



7. Burgett v. Bissell, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 638. 



8. Ga. Ray v. Schmidt 7 Ga. App. 380, 66 S. E. 1035. Mass. Douglas v. Shumway, 



13 Gray 498; N. C. See Shingle Mill v. Sanderson 161 N. C. 452, 77 S. E. 414 

 Ore. Alderson v. Lee 52 Ore. 92, 96 Pac. 234 (statute) W. Va. Justice v. Moore 

 (W. Va.) 71 S. E. 204. Williams v. Gillespie, 30 W. Va. 586. 5. S. E. 210. 

 Can. But See, Summers v. Cook, 28 Grant ch. (U. C.) 179. 



