Construction of. Conditions which go to defeat an estate or destroy an act are strict ly construed; while those which go to vest an estate are liberally construed ; Crabb, R. P. §. 2130 ; Mayor etc., of New York v. Stuy vesant, 17 N. Y. 34; Inhabitants of Hadley v. Mfg. Co., 4 Gray (Mass.) 144); Chapin v. School District, 35 N. H. 445 ; Wilson v. Galt, 18 Ill. 431; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 15 How. (U. S.) 323, 14 L. Ed. 435. The condition of an obligation is said to be the language of the obligee, and for that reason to be con strued liberally in favor of the obligor ; Co. Litt. 42 a, 183 a; Shep. Touchst. 375 ; Dy. 14 b, 17 a; Jackson v. Brownell, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 267, 3 Am. Dec. 326. But wherever an obligation is imposed by a condition, the construction is to be favorable to the obli gee; Catlin v. Fire Ins. Co., 1 Sumn. 440, Fed. Cas. No. 2,522. Conditions subsequent are not favored in law but are always strict ly construed because they tend to destroy estates ; Peden v. R. Co., 73 Ia. 328, 35 N. W. 424„5 Am. St. Rep. 680; and where it is doubtful whether a clause in a deed be a covenant or a condition, the courts will in cline against the latter construction ; Wood ruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 349, 16 Atl. 4, 1 L. R. A. 380.
Performance should be complete and ef fectual ; 1 Rolle, Abr. 425. An inconsider able casual failure to perform is not non performance; Mayor, etc., of New York v. Stuyvesant's Heirs, 17 N. Y. 34. Any one who has an interest in the estate may per form the condition ; but a stranger gets no benefit from performing it; Frederick v. Gray, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 186. Conditions precedent, if annexed to land, are to be strictly performed, even when affecting mar riage. Conditions precedent can generally be exactly performed ; and, at any rate, equity will not generally interfere to avoid the con sequences of non-performance; 3 Ves. Ch. 89 ; 2 Brown, Ch. 431. But in cases of condi tions subsequent, equity will interfere where there was even a partial performance, or where there Is only a delay of performance; Crabb, It. P. § 2160; Leach v. Leach, 4 Ind. 628, 58 Am. Dec. 642 ; Luques v. Thompson, 26 Me. 525. This is the ground of equitable jurisdiction over mortgages.
Generally, where there is a gift over in case of non-performance, the parties will be held more strictly to a performance than where the estate or gift is to revert to the grantor or his heirs.
Where conditions are liberally construed, strict performance is also required; and it may be said, in the same way, that a non-exact performance is allowed where there is a strict construction of the condi tion.
Generally, where no time of performance is limited, he who has the benefit of the contract may perform the condition when he pleases, at any time during his life ; Plowd. 16; Co. Litt. 208 b; and need not do
it when requ7sted; Co. Litt. 209 a. A condi tion precedent must be performed within a reasonable time, when no time is fixed for the performance thereof ; Soderberg v. Crockett, 17 Nev. 409, 30 Pac. 826. But if a prompt performance be necessary to carry out the will of a testator, the beneficiary shall not have a lifetime in which to perform the condition; Hamilton v. Elliott, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 384. In this case, no previous demand is necessary ; Hamilton v. Elliott, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 385 ; nor is it when the continuance of an estate depends upon an act to be done at a fixed time ; Royal v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 116 Ind. 424, 19 N. E. 202, 2 L. R. A. 526. But even then a reasonable time is al lowed; 1 Rolle, Abr. 449.
If the place be agreed upon, neither party alone can change it, but either may with consent of the other ; 1 Rolle 444; Peck's Adm'r v. Hubbard, 11 Vt. 612; 3 Leon. 260. See CONTRACT; PERFORMANCE.
Non-performance of a condition which was possible at the time of its making, but which has since become impossible, is excused if the impossibility is caused by act of God ; Poll. Contr. 387; Merrill v. Emery, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 507; or by, act of law, if it was law ful at its creation : Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366, 21 L. Ed. 287; Kelly v. Henderson, 1 Pa. 495 ; or by the act of the party ; as, when the one imposing the obliga tion accepts another thing in satisfaction or renders the performance impossible by his own default; Bradstreet v. Clark, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 389; Vermont v. Society, 1 Paine 652, Fed. Cas. No. 16,919; U. S. v. De la Maza Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. Ed. 547; Frets v. Frets, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 339. If per formance of one part becomes impossible by act of God, the whole will, in general, be excused ; 1 B. & P. 242 ; Cro. Eliz. 280; 5 Co. 21; 1 Ld. Raym. 279.
The effect of conditions may be to suspend the obligation ; as, if I bind myself to vey an estate to you on condition that you first pay one thousand dollars, in which case no obligation exists until the condition is performed: or may be to rescind the tion ; as, if you agree to buy my house on condition that it is standing unimpaired on the tenth of May, or I convey to you my farm on condition that the conveyance shall be void if I pay you one thousand dollars, in such cases the obligation is rescinded by the non-performance of the condition: or it may modify the previous obligation; as if o bind myself to convey my farm to you n the payment of four thousand dollars if you pay in bank stock, or of five thousand if you pay in money : or, in case of gift or bequest, may qualify the gift or bequest as to amount or persons.