Case ID: minn_167/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. McCARRON v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT TRUST.
    
    May 21, 1926.
    No. 25,195.
    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. pi 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. Timing, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 209 N. W. 15.
    
   Per Curiam.

Action for conversion of a Ford coupe. After a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals from the order denying Ms 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 wMch 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.