This section is, in effect, a codification — arguably with modifications (see Gruskin v Fisher, 405 Mich. 51; 273 N.W.2d 893 [1979]) — of the common-law rule that the forfeiture of an executory contract for purchase of land constitutes an election of remedies, precluding the vendor from later seeking damages for breach of contract. See, e.g., Balesh v Alcott, 257 Mich. 352, 354; 241 N.W. 216 (1932); Chicago Blvd Land Co v Apartment Garages, 245 Mich. 448; 222 N.W. 697 (1929); Taylor v Parkview Memorial Ass'n, 317 Mich. 164; 26 N.W.2d 748 (1947); Welling v Dave's Cut Rate Drugs, Inc, 362 Mich. 389; 107 N.W.2d 798 (1961). The remedy provided by summary proceedings is in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies, either legal, equitable or statutory.
" Among the cases recognizing the general rule as declared in the above decisions are: Trombley v. Koestlin, 266 Mich. 357; and Taylor v. Parkview Memorial Association, 317 Mich. 164 (171 ALR 507). The order of the trial court from which this appeal has been taken is affirmed.
It has long been settled that a valid notice of forfeiture terminates any right to bring an action on the contract. Taylor v. Parkview Memorial Association, 317 Mich. 164 (1947), Windmill Point Land Co v. Strickland, 264 Mich. 79 (1933). In Chicago Boulevard Land Co v. Apartment Garages, 245 Mich. 448, 450 (1929), the Court tersely stated the rules saying: