
    HOLLIS W. BUTTON, Complainant, Appellee, vs. JOSEPH J. SCHROYER, Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL IN EQUITY PROM GREEN CIRCUIT COURT.
    A court of equity has jurisdiction in cases arising out of contracts for the sale and conveyance of real estate, to relieve against forfeiture, and to foreclose the equity of the delinquent vendee.
    The relation of the parties to “title bonds” or “land contracts” (as these instruments are frequently called), is analogous to that of an equitable mortgagor and mortgagee for purchase money.
    Although a court of equity will relieve against a forfeiture for non-compliance on the part of the vendee in the payment of the purchase money at the day, yet it will decree payment within a reasonable time, or foreclosure of the right to redeem.
    . The complainant entered into a -written contract with the defendant for the sale of a certain tract of land. A part of the purchase money was paid down, the remainder to be paid in installments, and when fully paid, a conveyance of the title in fee simple to be made. Some of the installments of purchase money remained unpaid after they had become due and payable by the terms of the contract (the vendee being in possession), and the vendor filed his bill to foreclose or extinguish the equity of redemption of the vendee. The Circuit Court made the usual decree of foreclosure and sale, as in case of mortgage, and the defendant appealed.
   Per Curiam.

This is an ordinary case of a contract for the sale and conveyance of real estate, part of the j urchase money having been paid and possession taken, and the title withheld as security for the remainder of the purchase money. There is no doubt but that a court of equity has jurisdiction in such cases, as well to relieve tbe vendor as tbe vendee npon failure to comply. Tbe relation between tbe parties is analogous to that of equitable mortgagor and mortgagee. Tbe former bas an equity of redemption, tbe latter bas tbe correlative ngbt of foreclosure. A court of equity will relieve against forfeiture from non-compliance on tbe part of tbe vendee, but will enforce performance within a reasonable time.

But as tbe title did not pass by tbe contract, but remained in tbe vendor, we tbink tbe decree of sale erroneous. Tbe proper decree in sucb cases is, that tbe money due upon tbe contract be paid within sucb reasonable time as tbe court may direct, or that tbe vendee be foreclosed of bis equity of redemption. ' .

Decree reversed and cause remanded.  