Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morales

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morales

308 S.E.2d 102, 279 S.C. 388, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 359

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 3, 1983

Docket21990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 308 S.E.2d 102 (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morales, 308 S.E.2d 102, 279 S.C. 388, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 359 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,:

Respondent brought this claim and delivery action to establish its right to possession of a truck purchased by appellant on a conditional sales contract under which appellant had allegedly defaulted. Appellant answered, asserting he had not defaulted on the contract, and counterclaimed alleging conversion by respondent. After presentation of the entire case, the court granted respondent’s directed verdict motion and denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on his counterclaim. We affirm.

The uncontradicted evidence shows respondent’s employees told appellant that respondent did not intend to accept overdue payments on the contract beyond June 26,1979, and that actions would be begun at that time to recover the truck. Appellant mailed the payments on June 28, *390 1979. A payment of a debt is not considered made until it is accepted by the creditor with the intention of extinguishing the debt. In re McElmurray, 47 F.Supp. 15, 19 (D.S.C. 1942); 60 Am. Jur. (2d) Payment § 1 at 612 (1972); 70 C.J.S. Payment § 1 at 210-211 (1951).

We affirm the lower court’s rulings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,:

Respondent brought this claim and delivery action to establish its right to possession of a truck purchased by appellant on a conditional sales contract under which appellant had allegedly defaulted. Appellant answered, asserting he had not defaulted on the contract, and counterclaimed alleging conversion by respondent. After presentation of the entire case, the court granted respondent’s directed verdict motion and denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on his counterclaim. We affirm.

The uncontradicted evidence shows respondent’s employees told appellant that respondent did not intend to accept overdue payments on the contract beyond June 26,1979, and that actions would be begun at that time to recover the truck. Appellant mailed the payments on June 28, *390 1979. A payment of a debt is not considered made until it is accepted by the creditor with the intention of extinguishing the debt. In re McElmurray, 47 F.Supp. 15, 19 (D.S.C. 1942); 60 Am. Jur. (2d) Payment § 1 at 612 (1972); 70 C.J.S. Payment § 1 at 210-211 (1951).

We affirm the lower court’s rulings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 S.E.2d 102, 279 S.C. 388, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-motor-credit-co-v-morales-sc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack