APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Waldo M. York, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendant had an equitable lien upon the property, which the plaintiff cannot divest in an action to quiet title. (Hunt v. Turner, 9 Tex. 385, 60 Am. Dec. 167; Nicoll v. Ogden, 29 111. 323, 378, 81 Am. Dee. 311; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 992; Stucker v. Yoder, 33 Iowa, 177; Carpenter V.’ Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434, 25 Pac. 549; Dupuy v. •Leavenworth, 17 Cal. 263; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 29 Am. St. Rep. 133, 30 Pac. 605; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109.) The contract was of such a nature that it could not expire by lapse of time. Time not being made of the essence of the contract, equity will not decree a forfeiture. (Civ. Code, see. 1492; Miller v. Cox, 96 Cal. 339, 31 Pac. 161; Daly v. Buddell, 137 Cal. 671, 70 Pae. 784; Steele v. Branch, 40 Cal. 3; Beverly v. Blackwood, 102 Cal. 83, 36 Pac. 378; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 18 Am. St. Rep. 187, 24 Pae. 280; Martin v. Morgan, 87 Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. Rep. 240, 25 Pac. 350.) The plaintiff is estopped by his own acts from claiming that the contract was not. extended. (Steele v. Branch, 40 Cal. 3; Alexander v. Jackson, 92 Cal. 514, 27 Am. St. Rep. 158, 28 Pac. 593; Hanson v. Slaven, 98 Cal. 377, 33 Pae. 266; Mc-Crwy v. Pfost, 118 Mo. App. 672, 94 S. W. 998.) The contract and acts of the parties created a partnership in the land. (Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Carpenter v. Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434, 25 Pac. 549; Chapman V. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109.) ■

The contract did not create any interest in or lien on the land. (Hanna v. Flint, 14 Cal. 74; Holladay v. Frisbie, 15 Cal. 631; Price v. Sturgis, 44 Cal. 591; Heyn v. Philips, 37 Cal. 529; Byers v. Locke, 93 Cal. 493, 27 Am. St. Rep. 212, 29 Pac. 119; Snyder v. Wolford, 33 Minn. 175, 53 Am. Rep. 22, 22 N. W. 254; Michael v. Foil, 100 N. C. 178, 6 Am. St. Rep. 577, 6 S. E. 264; Lesley v. Eosson, 39 Miss. 386, 77 Am. Dee. 679; Huff v. Hardwick, 19 Colo. App. 416, 75 Pae. 593.) The contract did not establish the relation of partners between the parties. (Gleason v. White, 34 Cal. 258; Wheeler v. Farmer, 38 Cal. 203; Hanna v. Flint, 14 Cal. 73; Clark v. Emery, 58 TV. Va. 637, 52 S. E. 770; Sodiker v. Applegate, 24 TV. Va. 411, 49 Am. Rep. 252; Quackenbush v. Sawyer, 54 Cal. 439; Smith v. Schultz, 89 Cal. 526, 26 Pac. 1087; Vander-Jiurst v. DeWitt, 95 Cal. 57, 30 Pae. 94; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451, 55 Pac. 147; Cadenasso v. Antonelle. 127 Cal. 382, 59 Pac. 765.)