Maxwell Hardware Co. v. Hoffman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Maxwell Hardware Co. v. Hoffman

170 N.W. 135, 41 S.D. 212, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 185

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1918

DocketFile No. 4440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 N.W. 135 (Maxwell Hardware Co. v. Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maxwell Hardware Co. v. Hoffman, 170 N.W. 135, 41 S.D. 212, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 185 (S.D. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

GATE'S, J.

Action for damages for the conversion of a vacuum cleaner and motor. Trial to the court. Judgment for plaintiff. 'Defendant appeals from1 the judgment and from the denial of a new trial.

[1] Appellant’s argument rests chiefly upon the contention that, inasmuch! as he had a lien upon the property for storage charges, the respondent never made a valid) demand for the property, since he did not pay or tender the storage charges, and therefore that appellant was not without justification in failing to deliver it. Prior to such demand, appellant had disposed of the property to a junk dealer and did not have it in his possession at the time of the demand. If he had a lien thereon at the time of its disposal, such lien was thereby extinguished. 'C. C. § 2038. Therefore respondent was under no legal obligation to tender or pay the storage charges as a part of his demand for possession.

[2] But appellant contends that the evidence tends to show that 'by agreement with respondent he had afterwards, and before the beginning of this action, repurchased the property and held it for, and was willing to deliver it to, respondent upon payment of [214]*214his charges. No finding, of fact upon this proposition was made or sought. An assignment of error to the effect that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings does not 'bring this matter ■before us for review.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

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

GATE'S, J.

Action for damages for the conversion of a vacuum cleaner and motor. Trial to the court. Judgment for plaintiff. 'Defendant appeals from1 the judgment and from the denial of a new trial.

[1] Appellant’s argument rests chiefly upon the contention that, inasmuch! as he had a lien upon the property for storage charges, the respondent never made a valid) demand for the property, since he did not pay or tender the storage charges, and therefore that appellant was not without justification in failing to deliver it. Prior to such demand, appellant had disposed of the property to a junk dealer and did not have it in his possession at the time of the demand. If he had a lien thereon at the time of its disposal, such lien was thereby extinguished. 'C. C. § 2038. Therefore respondent was under no legal obligation to tender or pay the storage charges as a part of his demand for possession.

[2] But appellant contends that the evidence tends to show that 'by agreement with respondent he had afterwards, and before the beginning of this action, repurchased the property and held it for, and was willing to deliver it to, respondent upon payment of [214]*214his charges. No finding, of fact upon this proposition was made or sought. An assignment of error to the effect that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings does not 'bring this matter ■before us for review.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.W. 135, 41 S.D. 212, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-hardware-co-v-hoffman-sd-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack