Morning journal and courier., 1883-10-27
A PHASE OF THE INsTALLMENT CON-
 TRACT

PHASE OF THE INSTALLHIENT CON-
 TRACT.
 An interesting case occurred yesterday Tn the City court The Welcome Clock compa- ny of New York sold through it's agent, MT. Robert L. Manwaring, 8 clock to one Mir. Wellen upon the installnent plan. The tn- stailment contract provides that the title to the clock should remain in the company until the purchase price was paid and that if the pur- chaser should fail to meet any of the install ments as they became due the agent of the company should have the right to enter the premises of the purchaser and take away the clock without any resistance on his part. WelIen did fail to pay the miscellaneous, and the agent of the company entered WelIsn's house and took away the clock, sncountering in so doing the resistance of Mir. Wellen. The court hold that this entry and removal, notwithstanding the proviaions of the con tract, constituted breach of the peace.
 sThs clause permitting an entry upon the premises where the goods sold gre situated and their removal is to be found in almost all the prevailing forms of the iastallnsnt con- tract. We have therefore called attention to
 
 both to the seller and the buyer to know what their rights under this contract are It would certainty be very extraordinary state of things if in the thousands of instances where goods have been sold according to this plan the vendors really pos sessed the right to force their vsy into the premiEss of the purchasers in every case of failure to pay an -installmsnt when due; if, in short. one in buying an article on i'm stallments conveyed right of entry to his dwelling. Ne find that tue opinion of the bar fully coincides with the view taken by the City court. No one, 1t is said, can get an ir- revoeable power to enter the real property of another without decd of conveyance. Any thing ehort of that is 8 more license which the one who gives may revoke at pleasure The object of the instailment contract is to sell articles of personal property that have none of the requisites of Q deed and it does not and can not convey right to enter the purchaser s dwelling. The clause referred to has long been regarded as nugatory by leading mem bars of the bar The seller, therefore. who enters the house of the buyer in defiance of his will is guilty of e trespass and breach of the peace, notwithstanding the provisions of the contract The seller is not, however. without remedy. He may taka the property by legal process and have his right to pos session adjudicated by a civil tribunal This is the course which is usuaIly pursued
 We are glad the City court has had an oP- portunity to decide this question, for the pro- visions of these contracts are sufficiently severe without adding to them the right of breaking into the purchasers dwelling and creating row The case where the seller steals in and takes the article without being forbidden OF restricted by the purchaser still remains undecided But even this, in the opinion of some lawyers, weuld be equally 1 indefensible as contrary to the old-fashicned 1 law which makes every man's house his cas- tle. AtaH events the safer and better way is ! to have the rights of the parties dsssrmined | by txial in court.