Defendant counterclaimed charging interference with contract rights. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict for defendant on both the conversion claim and the counterclaim. No damages were assessed, however. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and plaintiffs moved for a new trial. The district court denied these motions.
Plaintiffs appeal from the final judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial.
This court finds that the court gave erroneous instructions on acceleration and a new trial must be ordered. The court refused to instruct that acceleration could only be done if defendant believed in good faith that its security interest was impaired by the breach of the security agreement. That refusal was prejudicial error. . . . Herriford leased the plane to plaintiffs in 1973. For two years payments continued to be regularly made on the note.