The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-07
THEY OWN THE FURNITURE
Important Decision to People
Who Buy on the In
StaIlment Plan.
DESTROYS DEALERS LEASES.
The Court Orders the Return Of
Some Furniture That Was Seized
for NonPayment.

A case of great interest to buyers of prop
erty on the instalment plan was decided
by Justice of the Peace Carroll yesterday.
The action was over what is called '1eased
furniture" or, in other words, furniture
sold on the installment plan. The buyers
had paid $87 on a bill of $113. There was
balance due of $685. which was not paid
promptly enough to suit the dealer and he
seized the furniture, on the ground that it
had been leased and not sold.
The court completely knocked him out
and ordered him to return the furniture,
the defendants, of course being ordered to
pay him the balance due, $26 1t was held
that the contract signed was not lease
but a conditional sale.
David Mexican, who lives on Clara street,
bought the furniture last June and signed
one of the usual contracts, which reads as
follows:
This is to certify that l, the undersigned,
have leased from the Aronson Furniture Com
pany, to be used in the building known as
- street, the personal property
IN the schedule annexed, for the use of
which we hereby agree to pay the sum of
s. to be paid in installments of s. per
week, or S-per month; and further agree
that if default be made in the payment, then
this lease shall be at an end and terminated
and the ArOnson Furniture Company shall be
at liberty TO enter upon the premises and take
away the property, and all damages and
charges for such entry and the taking are
hereby waived.
Aronson simply stated to the court that
he sold twenty-one yards of carpet, twelve
yards of linoleum and folding bed to the
McKeans for $113. They paid $S7 in weekly
installments. When they failed to pay the
balance, $26, on time, he got out writ of
replevin through the Sheriff office, went
TO the Mexican house and carted off his
furniture. OF course, Mrs. Mexican
stoutly objected, but he did not pay any
attention to her. He said it was his prop
erty, and he was going TO take it.
The McKeans fought the suit on the
on the iDstallment plan and it was theirs
to all intents and purposes, no matter
what the so-called lease which they had
signed said. The court substantially
agreed with them and said:
That the writing is not lease is settled be-
yond all dispute by the one fact that upon the
payment of the amount stated in the contract
the title was to pass irrevocably to the Nc
keans. This contract either transferred the
title OF the properly to them, and then is
perfect sale, or 1t is conditional sale, and to
tne character OF the judgment that should be
rendered 1t is immaterial which of these con-
structions be placed upon it.
This decision is very important one.
There are thousands of these so-called
leases at present outstanding between fur
niture-dealers and small householders
who are furnishing rooms on the INSTALL
ment plan. Many of them, like the Nc
Keans, have almost paid for their furnl-
ture, and then because they missed pay
ment have had it carted away by the
dealer. Under the law the dealer has no
right to seize their furniture
Aronson, in this instance, will have to
return the furniture to the McKeans, but,
OF course, they are expected to pay the bai-
ance of the bill,