FORFEITURE. A punishment annexed by law to some illegal act or negligence in the owner of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereby he loses all his interest therein, and they become vested in the party injured as a recompense for the wrong which he alone or the public together with himself, bath sus tained. 2 Bla. Com. 267. A sum of money to be paid by way of penalty for a crime. Maclin v. Wilson, 21 Ala. 672; Anglea v. Corn., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 700.
Forfeiture by alienation. By the English law, estates less than a fee may be forfeited to the party entitled to the residuary inter est by a breach of duty in the owner of the particular estate; as if a tenant for his own life aliens by feoffments or fine for the life of another, or in tail, or in fee, or by recov ery; there being estates, which either must or may last longer than his own, the creating them is not only beyond his power, but is a forfeiture of his own particular estate ; 2 Bla. Com. 274; 1 Co. 14 b. But no forfeiture resulted from alienation of a fee tail by the particular tenant, the allenee holding the estate during the life of the tenant in tail, at whose death it went to the heir in tail. This was called a discontinuance of the estate tail. 3 Bla. Com. 171. See DISCONTINUANCE OF ESTATES.
In this country such forfeitures are al most unknown, and the more just principle prevails that the conveyance by the tenant operates only on the interest which he pos sessed, and does not affect the remainderman or reversioner; 4 Kent 81, 424; McMillan's Lessee v. Robbins, 5 Ohio 30; Stevens v. Winship, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 318, 11 Am. Dec. 178 ; Redfern v. Middleton's Ex'rs, Rice (S. C.) 459; Stump v. Findlay, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 19 Am. Dec. 632 ; French v. Rollins, 21 Me. 372. See, also, Steam, Real Act. 11; 2 Sharsw. Bla. Com. 121, n.; Wms. R. P. 25; 1 Washb. R. P. 92, 197.
Forfeiture for crimes. Under the constitu tion and laws of the United States, Const. art. 3, § 3; Act of April 30, 1790, § 24, forfei ture for crimes is nearly abolished. And when it occurs the state recovers only the title which the owner had. See, also, Dalr. Feuds, p. 145; Fost. Cr. Law 95; 1 Washb.
R. P. 92; Story, Const. 1296; Owens v. Ow ens, 100 N. C. 240, 6 S. E. 794.
Forfeiture for treason. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, § 2, provides that no attainder of treason shall work for feiture except during the life of the person attainted. The Confiscation Act provided that only the life estate of the convicted person can be condemned and sold ; Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 350, 19 L. Ed. 696; Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 156, 21 L. Ed. 860. It was merely an exercise of the war power ; Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 304, 20 L. Ed. 135; and did not apply to the confiscation of enemies' property ; The Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods 221, Fed. Cas.
No. 3,097.
Forfeiture by non-performance of condi tions. An estate may be forfeited by a breach or non-performance of a condition an nexed to the estate, either expressed in the deed at its original creation, or implied by law, from a principle of natural reason; 2 Bla. Com. 281; Littleton § 361; 1 Prest. Est. 478; Tad. Lead. Cas. 794; Hayden v. Inhabit ants of Stoughton, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 528; An drews v. Senter, 32 Me. 394; Bowen v. Bow en, 18 Conn. 535; Stafford v. Walker, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 190; Drown v. Ingels, 3 Wash. 424, 28 Pac. 759. Such forfeiture may be waived by acts of the person entitled to take advan tage of the breach ; Chalker v. Chalker, 1 Conn. 79, 6 Am. Dec. 206; Jackson v. Crys ler, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 126; 1 Washb. R. P. 454 ; Hukill v. Myers, 36 W. Va. 639, 15 S. E. 151. In to authorize a claim to forfeiture of valuable property on account of violation of a condition, proceedings to enforce must be had at once ; Huston v. By bee, 17 Or. 140, 20 Pac. 51, 2 L. R. A. 568; U. S. v. R. Co., 176 U. S. 242, 20 Sup. Ct. 370, 44 L. Ed. 452.
Equity will not lend its aid to enforce a forfeiture because of a breach of condition subsequent in a deed, although the aid is sought upon the special ground of removing a cloud on the title ; Douglas v. Life Ins. Co., 127 Ill. 101, 20 N. E. 51; nor will it concern itself to make up the loss of interest to one who refused the principal in the hope that he could enforce, upon purely technical grounds, a forfeiture of lands sold and all payments made thereon, under the terms of a harsh and unconscionable contract; Cheney v. Bilby, 74 Fed. 52, 20 C. C. A. 291. But where a covenant to build, in a lease, has been broken by the lessee, a court of bank ruptcy acting as a court of equity may de clare a forfeiture ; Lindeke v. Realty Co., 146 Fed. 630, 77 C. C. A. 56 ; and equity will not prevent forfeiture if the lessee has been at fault ; Kann v. King, 204 U. S. 43, 27 Sup. Ct. 213, 51 L. Ed. 360. But equity will re lieve against a forfeiture where it would be unconscionable to enforce it ; Maginnis v. Ice Co., 112 Wis. 385, 88 N. W. 300, 69 L. R. A. 833; and if there is some rule by which damages for the failure to perform a condi tion can be accurately measured in money ; Gordon v. Richardson, 185 Mass. 492, 70 N. E. 1027, 69 L. R. A. 867; Dunklee v. Adams, 20 Vt. 415, 50 Am. Dec. 44 ; it is a question for the discretion of the court; 22 Ont. Rep. 1. Equity may relieve against forfeitures but not enforce them; South Carolina & G. R. Co. v. R. CO., 107 Ga. 164, 33 S. E. 36 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. R. Co., 76 Pa. 481.