McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust

209 N.W. 15, 167 Minn. 322, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1321
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 21, 1926·No. No. 25,195.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*323 Per Curiam.

Action for conversion of a Ford coupe. After a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals from the order denying Ms motion for judgment or a new trial. The evidence for plaintiff shows a conversion during a five-day extension of payment granted by defendant, the assignee of the seller. The forfeiture was declared for default in the very payment the time for wMch according to plaintiff had been extended. The verdict settles the facts in favor of plaintiff. Even though the extension of payment be without consideration, there can be no declaration of forfeiture during the additional period thereby allowed for payment. Scheerschmidt v. Smith, 74 Minn. 224, 77 N. W. 34; Reinkey v. Findley Elec. Co. 147 Minn. 161, 180 N. W. 236.

No other assignment of error calls for consideration.

Order affirmed.

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

McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust, 209 N.W. 15, 167 Minn. 322, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1321 (Mich. 1926).

209 N.W. 15 (McCarron v. Commercial Credit Trust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gowin v. Heider
391 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
Saunders v. Commercial Credit Trust
256 N.W. 142 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Laird v. Byrd
9 S.W.2d 571 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)