This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The action was one to recover possession of certain mining property and damages for the detention thereof. A jury was impanelled to try the case. After the evidence on the part of the plaintiff was closed, the trial court, on the motion of the defendant, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. This was done, and thereupon judgment was given for the defendant. The action of the trial court in thus instructing the jury is alleged to have been erroneous, it being claimed that plaintiff made a sufficient case to support a verdict in its favor.

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts shown are substantially as follows:

The first payment (nine thousand five hundred dollars) having been made, plaintiff went into possession of said property on or about January 12, 1910, and proceeded with the development and operation of said mines, and continued in such possession and operation until April 26, 1910, when defendant took possession, claiming that all rights of plaintiff under said contract had terminated. It was to recover such possession that this action was brought by plaintiff on July 8, 1910, two days prior to the day on which it would be in default for a failure to make the second payment, one of twelve thousand five hundred dollars, due July 1, 1910.

At the time of the first payment, defendant placed in escrow, in the Bank of California, a deed of said property subject to the terms and conditions of said agreement. The property was at that time, according to an undenied allegation of the complaint, encumbered by a mortgage placed thereon by.defendant “in a sum of money in excess of” thirty thousand dollars, and according to the complaint and the proof, by a lien for unpaid state and county taxes for the year 1909, amounting to $1,477.64, being the second installment of the taxes for said year, payable when the contract was executed but not delinquent until the fourth Monday of April, 1910.

On April 19, 1910, plaintiff had been operating the mines for over two months, and had extracted at clean-ups bullion of the value of about twenty thousand dollars, but had not paid any portion of the ten per cent thereof to defendant. It cannot successfully be disputed that plaintiff’s evidence shows that on April 1, 1910, at least $658.69 was due defendant under the provision requiring the payment of ten per cent of the gross amount extracted at clean-ups. Indeed, according to Fitzgerald’s written acknowledgment on April 2, 1910, the amount due April 1st was $975.58.

Fitzgerald was at all times the general manager of plaintiff in this state, and one Thomas A. Kelly was superintendent of the mine and in possession thereof for the plaintiff. On March 17, 1910, defendant sent a formal letter to Fitzgerald, as such manager, signed by its president and secretary and attested with its corporate seal, notifying him that plaintiff was delinquent in the matter of paying to defendant ten per cent of the clean-ups as made. The letter contained the following statements, among others not material here: “On February 7, 1910, we wrote you in reference to this matter. You replied on February 9, 1910, promising to attend to this matter. You have now been in possession of the property for about two months. We know that you have had very many clean-ups, both of tributers and of company rock, amounting to several thousand dollars. According to our contract, we are entitled to a full statement and ten per cent of the gross clean-ups. As you have not replied to our letter of February 7th, and have given us no statement and no payments, we hereby wish to inform you that we shall hold you strictly accountable to the letter and spirit of the contract. Kindly send us at once a statement of the total amount you have taken from the mines since they have been in your possession, and send us a check for ten per cent of that amount. We do not desire in any way to hinder you in your operations, but we must insist, and do insist, upon a strict compliance with the contract; if said statement, accompanied by a check for ten per cent of the amount taken out, is not received by us, we shall immediately take steps to take possession of the property, as provided in the contract. Kindly understand we do not wish to hamper you in any way, but we do insist that you must keep up to the letter and spirit of the contract. We hereby demand, as is our right, at the close of each and every month, you send us a verified statement of the total product for the month, and send us a check for ten per cent of said amount.” On April 2d, Fitzgerald sent by mail to defendant’s president at San Francisco, a draft on one Phillips in Chicago for $975.58, with a statement showing such amount to be the amount due on clean-ups. On April 4,1910, defendant by letter acknowledged receipt of the statement and draft, and said it would forward the same for collection, trusting it would be honored when presented. It was duly presented to Phillips for payment, but payment was refused by him. On April 13, 1910, the secretary wrote Fitzgerald as such manager that he had been directed to inform him that the draft had not been accepted and “is being returned unpaid, and also to ask him to state by return mail what he proposed to do in these matters, and what might be expected in the future.” On April 14, 1910, Fitzgerald replied to this letter, expressing great surprise that the draft should not have been honored, and ’promising that he would pay all amounts due in a short time. A telegram was produced on the trial showing that he had been expressly authorized by Phillips to draw on him for “five hundred” only.. On April 18, 1910, he again wrote defendant’s president inclosing on account of royalties his personal cheek for five hundred dollars on the Citizens Bank of Nevada City. This check was never paid, being marked “No funds,” Fitzgerald stating that he had funds in the bank when he drew the check, but that he withdrew the same before its presentation for the purpose of preventing payment.

On April 19, 1910, at a regular meeting of the board of directors, the following resolution was adopted, viz.:

On April 20th or 21st, 1910, defendant’s president and secretary went to the mine, and the secretary there delivered to Mr. Kelly, the superintendent in charge, a duly certified copy of this resolution. According to Kelly’s testimony, he told them they would have to see Fitzgerald about it, and left the paper on the desk or handed it to the secretary. Fitzgerald came into the office while they were talking. According to Fitzgerald’s testimony the subsequent proceedings were as follows: The president of defendant told him he had come to take possession of the mine, because, among other reasons, the royalties had not been paid, and he, Fitzgerald, at once offered to pay all royalties due. The president retired for a consultation with the secretary, and on his return said: “I don’t want to be too hard on you, Fitz. If you will pay me $1,500 to $2,000 in royalties and $1,600 in taxes, I will let you off. ’ ’ The tax thus referred to was that we have spoken of, being the second installment for the year 1909. Fitzgerald declined to pay anything on account of the taxes, but tendered the royalties demanded, which the president refused to accept. At the close of the interview either the president or secretary gave to Fitzgerald the certified copy of the resolution we have referred to. According to Kelly, the president said he had not then received the five hundred dollar check sent April 18th, but that if it had been forwarded, Fitzgerald would be likely to receive it back by return mail. The officers of defendant left, and on April 26th they returned and took possession of the property without plaintiff’s consent, and defendant has ever since been operating the mine.

Plaintiff was entitled, of course, to continue in the possession and operation of the mining property as long as it fully performed the conditions imposed upon it by the agreement between its assignors and defendant.

The claim that there was a default in the matter of the payment of taxes was discussed in the opinion heretofore filed in this ease by Department One of this court, and it was concluded that plaintiff was not required to pay the tax in question and that therefore there was no default in that matter. We adhere to the conclusion then reached in this regard, but as will appear from what follows, this conclusion is immaterial in the disposition of this appeal, and it will not be necessary to here set forth the reasons for that conclusion.

It was assumed in the department opinion, we are satisfied correctly, that one of the conditions imposed on plaintiff in the matter of remaining in possession and operating the mining property was the payment to defendant of ten per cent of the gross amount of each clean-qp, within ten days of the making of the clean-up, the provision for ten days’ grace as to payment being held applicable to “clean-up payments.” The provisions of the agreement in this behalf may be held to have been waived by defendant to the extent stated in its formal letter of March 17, 1910, which stated that “we hereby demand, as is our right, at the close of each and every month, you send us a verified statement of the total product for the month, and send us a check for ten per cent of said amount. ’ ’ But there was nothing to indicate a waiver to any greater extent. Indeed, the letter was explicit to the effect that there must be a strict compliance with the contract, and that unless the amount already due was at once paid, and payments were made promptly at the close of each month on account of the clean-ups during such month, defendant would consider the contract at an end and would take possession of the property. Nothing was ever said or done by defendant to indicate that it would not maintain this position or that it would excuse any further delay in the matter of payments. And up to April 26, 1910, when a certified copy of- the resolution of defendant’s board of directors declaring the agreement terminated was served upon plaintiff’s superintendent, neither any payment nor tender of payment on account of such clean-ups had been made, unless the check for five hundred dollars dated April 18, 1910, which does not appear to have been accepted, and which was not, in fact, received by defendant until after April 19th, be considered a tender of the amount specified therein, an amount not sufficient to pay the percentage on clean-ups admittedly due not later than April 11, 1910.

The relative rights of the respective parties under the contract before us are well established by the decisions in this state. The plaintiff, as successor of Phillips, Fitzgerald, and Stewart, held, upon certain specified conditions, the option to purchase the mining property for three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars, with the right to possess such property and operate the mines thereon after the first payment on account of the purchase price had been made, during the life of the option, and having made such first payment was in the possession of and operating the property. Among the conditions were some requiring the making of certain payments within ten days of certain specified dates, and one requiring the payment of ten per cent of the gross amount of any clean-up (to be applied on the purchase price) within ten days of the making of the clean-up. Although it is held that where mines or mining properties are the subject of contract, time is of the essence, independent of any express stipulation inserted in the instrument (see Skookum Oil Co. v. Thomas, 162 Cal. 539 , [ 123 Pac. 363 ]), it was expressly provided in regard to the payments that “time is of the essence of this option,” and it was substantially provided that “upon the failure to make any payments above specified, or upon the breach of any agreements herein provided,” all rights of the holders of the option shall terminate and all payments theretofore made by them shall be forfeited. Such is the clear effect of the provisions contained in the agreement. Under such circumstances it is well settled that an inexcusable failure on the part of the holder of the option to make a payment when the same should be paid according to the agreement, terminates his rights under the option, and makes it impossible for him to enforce the same, in the absence of waiver on the part of the other party. (See Oursler v. Thacher, 152 Cal. 739 , [ 93 Pac. 1007 ] ; Glock v. Howard, 123 Cal. 1 , [ 69 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 43 L. R. A. 199, 55 Pac. 713 ].) It can make no difference that the vendee is in possession under the option His right to the possession is only such as the contract gives, and if the contract substantially provides that the right of possession shall cease upon the failure to perform a specified condition, the failure to perform such condition entitles the owner to the immediate possession of the property. (See Hegler v. Eddy, 53 Cal. 597 .) The evidence in the case at bar was not such as would sufficiently support a conclusion that the failure of plaintiff to make this payment on or before April 11th was in any way excusable, or that defendant prior to the adoption of its resolution of April 19, 1910, had in any way waived the making of such payment at the prescribed time, or waived any of its rights in consequence of such nonpayment. Plaintiff’s rights under the contract were therefore on April 19, 1910, at an end, unless defendant elected to waive plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms thereof. Instead of doing anything of this kind, it, by its board of directors, adopted a formal resolution declaring the agreement to be terminated, and directing its secretary to immediately take possession of the property. We do not understand that any notice was essential to terminate plaintiff’s rights under the contract. (See Commercial Bank v. Weldon, 148 Cal. 601, 608 , [ 84 Pac. 171 ].) Its default, unexcused and not waived, ipso facto terminated those rights, and practically the only effect of the resolution was to express the determination of defendant corporation not to waive such default and that the contract was, by reason of the default, terminated, and to authorize the designated officer for and in its name to retake possession. Unless defendant elected to recede from this determination, nothing remained for plaintiff to do but to surrender possession on demand therefor. A tender of all the amounts due, made subsequent to such default, could not avail it (Skookum Oil Co. v. Thomas, 162 Cal. 539 , [ 123 Pac. 363 ], even if such tender was made prior to the actual service of demand for possession. Even if we assume that what was said by defendant’s president to Fitzgerald at the time of serving the notice on him could be taken as binding on the corporation, clearly nothing was said by him except to indicate certain terms and conditions upon which the corporation would waive the default. The right of defendant to possession being already fixed and established, it had the right to prescribe any terms it saw fit as the condition upon ewhich it would waive and forego that right, and reinstate plaintiff under the contract, It is entirely immaterial that the payment demanded as such a condition was larger than the amount that would be due under the terms of the contract, and included charges that plaintiff would not have been required to pay thereunder. Plaintiff did not see fit to accept the offer made by defendant’s president, and that officer did not attempt to waive any of the rights of his corporation in the matter.

Prom what we have said it is clear that if the ease had been allowed to go to the jury, and the jury had found in favor of plaintiff, the court would have been compelled, on motion to that effect, to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict. The trial court did not therefore err in directing a verdict for defendant.

In view of what we have said the other points made in the briefs of counsel for plaintiff require little discussion.

The denials and affirmative allegations contained in the amended answer made sufficient issues as to the alleged performance by plaintiff of the condition entitling it to remain in possession of the property, and sufficiently showed the determination of defendant to consider the contract at an end by reason of the default alleged, and a taking of possession in pursuance of that determination. The failure to deny the allegations of the complaint as to the manner in which defendant obtained possession of the property from plaintiff’s employees was of no importance. This is not an action of forcible entry, but one brought long after the time within which such an action could be brought, and the only effect of the allegations of the complaint in this regard was to show that plaintiff did not consent to the taking of possession by defendant. The demurrer to the answer was properly overruled.

Even if it be assumed, as claimed by plaintiff, that the pleadings are in such condition as to prevent defendant from asserting in this action that it is entitled to retain the nine thousand five hundred dollars paid to it by plaintiff, a matter we by no means concede, nevertheless plaintiff was not entitled to recover such money in this action, which is brought by plaintiff solely to recover possession of the mining prop erty, and to obtain an accounting as to the proceeds obtained by defendant while wrongfully in possession, and to recover damages caused plaintiff by the alleged unlawful withholding. No' other relief was suggested in the complaint by either allegation or prayer, and the right of plaintiff to recover the money was not in issue.

The fact that the title of defendant was encumbered by a mortgage for thirty thousand dollars, and by the lien for the taxes already referred to is of no avail to plaintiff in this action, involving, as it does, only the question of the right to the possession and operation of the mining property. Even if the title of defendant were in any way defective or encumr bered, nevertheless plaintiff was not entitled to remain in possession without complying with the conditions as to payment. Thé principle involved is discussed in the opinion in Garvey v. LaShells, 151 Cal. 586, 531 , [ 91 Pac. 498 ], and the cases therein cited.

There is no other matter requiring notice.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

Sloss, J., Henshaw, J., Lorigan, J., Melvin, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.