From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 21, 1926
209 N.W. 15 (Minn. 1926)

Opinion

No. 25,195.

May 21, 1926.

Seller cannot declare forfeiture of sales contract during extension granted by him.

During the period of an extension granted by him, even without consideration, the seller cannot declare a forfeiture under a conditional sales contract for default in payment.

Sales, 35 Cyc. p. 675 n. 76.

Action in the district court for Itasca county for conversion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed from an order, Wright, J., denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Affirmed.

David London, for appellant.

Alfred L. Thwing, for respondent.



Action for conversion of a Ford coupe. After a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for judgment or a new trial. The evidence for plaintiff shows a conversion during a five-day extension of payment granted by defendant, the assignee of the seller. The forfeiture was declared for default in the very payment the time for which according to plaintiff had been extended. The verdict settles the facts in favor of plaintiff. Even though the extension of payment be without consideration, there can be no declaration of forfeiture during the additional period thereby allowed for payment. Scheerschmidt v. Smith, 74 Minn. 224, 77 N.W. 34; Reinkey v. Findley Elec. Co. 147 Minn. 161, 180 N.W. 236.

No other assignment of error calls for consideration.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 21, 1926
209 N.W. 15 (Minn. 1926)
Case details for

McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust

Case Details

Full title:A. McCARRON v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT TRUST

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: May 21, 1926

Citations

209 N.W. 15 (Minn. 1926)
209 N.W. 15

Citing Cases

Saunders v. Commercial Credit Trust

1; Davidson v. Hurty, 116 Minn. 280, 133 N.W. 862, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 324; Curtis v. N.W. Bedding Co. 121 Minn.…