A forfeiture must be judicially declared ; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 420 ; In re Brooklyn, W. & N. Ry. Co., 72 N. Y. 245 ; Wicks v. Monihan, 130 N. Y. 232, 29 N. E. 139, 14 L. R. A. 243. A for feiture can be enforced by scire lacks or a quo warrant° only at the suit of the govern ment which created the corporation ; State v. Coal Co., 46 Md. 1 ; Corn. v. Small, 26 Pa. 31; Elizabethtown Gas Light Co. v. Green, 46 N. J. Eq. 118, 18 Atl. 844; Bass v. Navi gation & Water-Power Co., 111 N. C. 439, 14 S. E. 402, 19 L. R. A. 247. But not at the suit of an individual; Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 344; Frost v. Coal Co., 24 How. (U. S.) 278, 16 L. Ed. 637; Williams v. Ry. Co., 130 Ind. 71, 29 N. E. 408, 15 L. R. A. 64, 30 Am. St. Rep. 201. The state may waive a cause of forfeiture ; Peo ple v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 351; State v. Morris, 73 Tex. 435, 11 S. W. 392 ; and it will not in terfere, if the unauthorized acts of a corpo ration affect merely stockholders and credi tors who have an, adequate legal remedy ; State v. Mfg. Co., 40 Minn. 213, 41 N. W. 1020, 3 L. R. A. 510.
Equity has no jurisdiction in the matter ; Moraw. Priv. Corp. 10, 40 ; Attorney General v. Stevens, 1 N. J. Eq. 369, 22 Am. Dec. 526 ; State v. Merchants' Ins. & Trust Co., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 253. But where there was a franchise to construct a 'street railway in a specified time, and in case of failure the franchise to be forfeited, the right was lost without suit, there having been a failure; Oakland R. Co. v. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365, 13 Am.
Rep. 181.
Forfeiture for contesting a will. It is not against public policy for a will to provide that any contestant shall forfeit his interest under the will ; In re Hite's Estate, 155 Cal. 436, 101 Pac. 443, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 953, 17 Ann. Cas. 993. As to what amounts to such contest, re sulting in forfeiture, the rule seems to be that, where the legatee seeks to thwart the testator's expressed wishes, it is a contest ; In re Hite's Estate, 155 Cal. 436, 101 Pac. 443, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 953, 17 Ann. Cas. 993. Disputes over construction of wills, are not contests ; Black v. Herring, 79 Md. 146, 28 Atl. 1063; Woodward v. James, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 95; Ir. L. R. 11 Eq. 409; nor where the legatee appears by attorney and cross-exam ines witnesses at the probate of a will; In re Bratt, 10 Misc. 491, 32 N. Y. Supp. 168. But if the legatee deny the ownership of the testator, theme is contest and forfeiture; Smithsonian Inst. v. Meech, 169 U. S. 398, 18 Sup. Ct. 396, 42 L. Ed. 793 ; or if one legatee advise and aid another in a contest; Donegan v. Wade, 70 Ala. 501. An infant is not responsible for proceedings by a guard ian ad titem; Bryant v. Thompson, 59 Hun 545, 14 N. Y. Supp. 28 ; id., 128 N. Y. 426, 28 N. E. 522, 13 L. R. A. 745. See Chew's Ap peal, 45 Pa. 228, holding that such clauses are to be construed strictly and when merely de nouncing such contests and making no gift over, they are considered as only in terrorem.