
    HEATH v. GLOSTER.
    Appeal and Error — Equitable Claims Not Considered on Appeal in Law Action — Vendor and Purchaser — Forfeiture.
    Equitable claims of respective parties may not be considered on appeal in law action where there has been notice of forfeiture of executory land contract, followed, after fair trial, by valid judgment for restitution duly entered both by circuit court commissioner, and, on appeal, by circuit court.
    Appeal from Wayne; Chenot (James E.), J.
    Submitted June 7, 1932.
    (Docket No. 8, Calendar No. 36,486.).
    Decided September 16, 1932.
    Petition for rehearing denied January 25, 1933.
    
      Summary proceedings by Charles C. Heath against Joanna Gloster to recover possession of real estate sold under land contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      George B. Murphy, for plaintiff.
    
      Arthur Gloster, for defendant.
   On Petition eor Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing in the case of Heath v. Gloster, 260 Mich. 85, a law action, is denied. Dirr v. Hitchman, 260 Mich. 179, is an equity suit involving the equitable claims of the respective parties. These we cannot consider on appeal in a law action where there has been a notice of forfeiture of an executory land contract, followed, after fair trial, by valid judgment for restitution duly entered both by the circuit court commissioner, and, on appeal, by the circuit court.  