Court Opinion

ID: 9696891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:13.162164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.516287
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
(dissenting) — Here the plaintiff seeks his “pound of flesh.” He has refused to be made whole and seeks an unjust enrichment. His refusal of intervenor’s tender of all sums due made before the taking of any evidence and his appeal from the trial court’s decision based on fairness to all appears avaricious and unconscionable. I do not think that even the technical rules of replevin require us to> place the stamp of approval thereon.
As the trial court said, courts do not favor forfeitures and do not like to see a party to a contract get something for nothing.
The question in replevin is the right to possession but plaintiff’s right to possession was dependent upon the nonpayment of the sums due on the conditional sales contract. When he refused to be paid and. be made whole before the right to possession was determined in district court the foundation on which his right to possession was based failed.
There was neither statutory nor contractual right to redemption but the trial court arrived at what I think was a commendable result in determining possession was' dependent on nonpayment.
I would affirm.
Peterson, J., joins in this dissent.