Joy v. Little

2 Citing cases

  1. Daugherty Cat. Co. v. Gen. Cons. Co.

    254 Mont. 479 (Mont. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    In Cook-Reynolds and subsequent forfeiture cases, this Court has consistently upheld contract provisions such as the clause in Paragraph 5 which allows the seller to retain all payments "as reasonable rental for the use of the property and as liquidated damages." See, e.g., Joy v. Little (1960), 138 Mont. 110, 354 P.2d 1035; and Erickson v. First Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis (1985), 215 Mont. 350, 697 P.2d 1332. [1] At the time of contracting, Daugherty and General's predecessor agreed that the payments already made under the contract terms at the time of a default by the purchaser would be reasonable rental and proper liquidated damages.

  2. Kovacich v. Metals Bank Trust Co.

    365 P.2d 639 (Mont. 1961)   Cited 9 times
    In Kovacich, we held that buyers of a mobile home who had defaulted on the sales contract, and who were unable to make further payments due to an employment strike, were not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

    [3] A plaintiff in order to claim relief from a forfeiture must come within the provisions of section 17-102, supra, as the common law will not override the provisions of this section. See Joy v. Little, 138 Mont. 110, 354 P.2d 1035. It has been repeatedly held by this court that to come within the provisions of section 17-102, supra, a party must set forth facts of a forfeiture which will appeal to the conscience of a court of equity.