Groeneveld v. Delozier

KING, P. J., pro tem.

A

ppeal from judgment for plaintiff for $1,000.

The verified complaint alleges:

I. A written contract dated July 30, 1923, hy which defendants agreed to sell plaintiff certain cattle and dairy equipment for $5,000, payable $100 down, $900, July 31, 1923, $1,000 on or before ninety days, $75 August 16, 1923, and other later payments, with interest on deferred payments payable monthly.

The contract recites that “As there is a mortgage now against the cows these payments are to be applied on it” until the defendants “take same up.”

[642]

It is contracted that the stock and increase are to remain on the ranch “where now located” until paid for. Plaintiff was “granted the use of the corrals and barns,” etc.

Appellants agreed to erect a three-room cottage for the milkers and make other specified improvements.

It was also provided that if plaintiff “fails to meet Ms payments as they become due then he forfeits all money paid and his interest in said cattle reverts,” etc., “at their option.”

The agreement provides that appellant was to care for said stock “in a dairymanlike manner” and to keep feed and expense bills paid.

II. That plaintiff entered into possession of the property July 31, 1923, and on August 9, 1923, defendants dispossessed him.

III. That defendants did not apply the payments to the mortgage nor build the cottage.

IV. That plaintiff has performed all obligations, etc., “except those he was prevented from performing by defendants. ’ ’

V. That plaintiff has paid $1,000; that $1,500 is the reasonable increase in value of said cattle—and plaintiff is damaged $2,500.

A second cause of action along similar lines alleges that “defendants unlawfully took, converted and disposed of said cattle and chattels to their own use to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.