For several years some of our intermediary courts have proceeded upon the theory that no forfeiture of a land contract can be declared upon a violation of the provision that the vendee shall not assign or transfer any or all of his interest without the written consent of the vendor. The opinion has been held that this clause is not binding upon the vendee and that the vendor cannot prevent the alienation of the equitable interest of the vendee by a provision of that character.

The question has not been squarely before the Supreme Court. But whatever position this Court may take with respect to the validity of said clause, there can be no doubt that frequently the vendor sells his property with a very small down payment to a vendee whom he deems financially and morally responsible, thereby relying not only on the property as security for the balance, but to a greater extent, on the moral and financial responsibility of such vendee. Sometimes also, the friendly relations which may exist between the vendor and vendee may be the inducing cause to a transfer of property with a small first payment, an inducement which disappears when an assignment is made to a person who may be entirely unknown to the vendor, and unreliable. In cases of this kind it may therefore be deemed advisable to insert a clause in the land contract that, at the option of the vendor, when any assignment of property is made by the vendee, the assignee shall pay to the vendor a certain portion of the unpaid balance, such amount to be determined, of course, at the time of the execution of the land contract. Such additional payment should offset any loss through the moral and financial instability of the prospective assignee. This clause will, in most cases, have the same effect as a non-assignment clause in that it affords the vendor all the necessary protection, but removes from him the power of any arbitrary action.