McDaniel v. Chiaramonte
Decision Date | 19 March 1912 |
Citation | 122 P. 33,61 Or. 403 |
Parties | McDANIEL v. CHIARAMONTE. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; C.U. Gantenbein, Judge.
Suit by N.M. McDaniel against Rosi Chiaramonte. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
On October 8, 1910, plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant to sell her a certain automobile for the price of $3,005.20, of which defendant paid $700 in cash, $100 in ten days, and gave three promissory notes of that date for the balance of the price, namely, one for $300, payable in monthly installments of $100 each, beginning November 8 1910; one for $300, payable in two installments, namely, $150 on February 8, 1911, and $150 on March 8, 1911; and one for $1,605.20, payable in eight monthly installments of $200.65 each, beginning April 8, 1911; each note providing for attorney's fees in case of suit or action thereon. At the time the agreement was made, and as a part of that transaction, plaintiff and defendant executed an agreement as follows:
Upon default in payment of a part of the first promissory note, plaintiff took possession of the auto. Thereupon defendant brought an action against plaintiff to recover the sum of $950, the amount paid on the purchase price, and thereafter plaintiff brought this suit as a cross-bill to enjoin the law action and foreclose defendant's equity in the automobile. To the cross-bill, defendant filed a demurrer, which was overruled by the court, and a decree was rendered in plaintiff's favor, as prayed. Defendant appeals.
M.B. Meacham (Albert B. Ferrera, on the brief), for appellant.
A.H. Tanner and John Van Zante (Johnson & Van Zante, on the brief), for respondent.
EAKIN, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).
The first question relates to the character of the transaction as disclosed by the complaint, whether it is a conditional sale or a chattel mortgage. "The term 'conditional sale' is, however, commonly applied to a class of transactions where, by the terms of the contract, the possession of the goods is delivered to the buyer; but the property in them is to remain in the seller until the payment of the price." 35 Cyc. 652. The transaction is none the less a conditional sale, because the defendant is obligated absolutely to pay the price, as that is a condition alike of absolute and conditional sales. Freed Furniture, etc., Co. v. Sorensen, 28 Utah, 419, 79 P. 564, 107 Am.St.Rep. 731, 3 Ann.Cas. 637, and note; 35 Cyc. 654.
Here defendant agreed to buy and unconditionally to pay the purchase price of the machine. Plaintiff retained title to the machine as security for the payment of the purchase price, and on default of payment he was authorized to take possession, and at his election ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dryden v. Daly
...Long v. Dufur, 58 Or. 162, 113 P. 59; Moore v. Fowler, 58 Or. 292, 114 P. 472; Pr bstel v. Trout, 60 Or. 145, 118 P. 551; McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 122 P. 33; Splonskofsky v. Minto, 62 Or. 560, 126 P. Scholl v. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 127 P. 968; Shipman v. Portland Construction Com......
-
Keller v. Lonsdale
...with a beneficial interest therein, so long as the contract was not in default. Such constitute an equitable interest. McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 409, 122 P. 33; Richardson v. Bouthillier, 193 Or. 354, 360, 238 P.2d The defendants point to Bottemiller v. Ball, 130 Or. 255, 264, 27......
-
Fones v. Murdock
...v. Dufur, 58 Or. 162, 113 P. 59; Moore v. Fowler, 58 Or. 292, 114 P. 472; Proebstel v. Trout, 60 Or. 145, 118 P. 551; McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 122 P. 33; Splonskofsky v. Minto, 62 Or. 560, 126 P. Shipman v. Portland Const. Co., 64 Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Equi v. Olcott, 66 Or. 213, 1......
-
Miles v. Sabin
... ... the parties, gathered from all the language of the ... contract." McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, ... 407, 122 P. 33, 35 ... The ... contract provides "that the terms and conditions of sale ... ...