Des Moines Joint-Stock Land Bank of Des Moines v. Wyffels
| Decision Date | 11 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 28807.,28807. |
| Citation | 185 Minn. 476,241 N.W. 592 |
| Parties | DES MOINES JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK OF DES MOINES v. WYFFELS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lyon County; A. H. Enersen, Judge.
Action by the Des Moines Joint-Stock Land Bank of Des Moines against J. B. Wyffels, Sr. From an order satisfying and discharging of record a judgment recovered by plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Johnson & Hoel, of Canby, and Allen & Whitfield, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.
J. V. Williams, of Marshall, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court satisfying and discharging of record a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant for an unpaid installment on a contract for deed, wherein the plaintiff was the vendor and the defendant the vendee.
September 20, 1929, defendant contracted to purchase a farm from the appellant at the agreed price of $17,600; $500 in cash, $2,000 on March 1, 1930, the balance payable in installments over a period of years. The defendant defaulted in the payment of the $2,000 installment and in the interest which was due September 1, 1930. The judgment here involved was for $2,532.48, which was recovered by the plaintiff for the defaulted installment and interest. Defendant again defaulted on the installment next thereafter due and the plaintiff canceled the contract according to its terms by serving the proper notice of cancellation. This cancellation was predicated upon the default accruing on March 1, 1931, and not upon the installment and interest included in the judgment.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not the subsequent cancellation of the contract for deed entitles the defendant to the order satisfying and discharging the judgment of record.
It is fundamental that unpaid installments cannot be collected by the vendor after the cancellation of the contract. 30 A. L. R. 631. Does that rule apply to uncollected judgments for installments due previously to the cancellation and not forming a basis for the cancellation? The trial court relied upon the case of Warren v. Ward, 91 Minn. 254, 97 N. W. 886, 887, in granting the defendant the relief which he sought. In so doing, we are of the opinion that the court was right.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the entry of judgment amounted to the creation of a new obligation, separate and distinct from the original agreement by the defendant in the contract for deed to pay the installment which was the basis of the judgment. Plaintiff cites the case of Andresen v. Simon, 171 Minn. 168, 213 N. W. 563, where a note, secured by a mortgage on other property, was given in lieu of a cash down payment on a contract for deed. It was there held that the giving of this note and mortgage was the result of an independent transaction, having no connection with the manner of making the deferred payments, and consequently the court allowed a recovery. That is quite a different situation from the one now before us,...
To continue reading
Request your trial