Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Respondent, v. Raul MORALES, Appellant.

Oct. 3, 1983.

Per Curiam:

Respondent brought this claim and delivery action to establish its right to possession of a truck purchased by appellant on a conditional sales contract under which appellant had allegedly defaulted. Appellant answered, asserting he had not defaulted on the contract, and counterclaimed alleging conversion by respondent. After presentation of the entire case, the court granted respondent's directed verdict motion and denied appellant's motion for a directed verdict on his counterclaim. We affirm.

The uncontradicted evidence shows respondent's employees told appellant that respondent did not intend to accept overdue payments on the contract beyond June 26, 1979, and that actions would be begun at that time to recover the truck. Appellant mailed the payments on June 28, 1979. A payment of a debt is not considered made until it is accepted by the creditor with the intention of extinguishing the debt. In re McElmurray, 47 F. Supp. 15, 19 (D.S.C. 1942); 60 Am. Jur.2d Payment § 1 at 612 (1972); 70 C.J.S. Payment § 1 at 210-211 (1951).

We affirm the lower court's rulings.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. v. MORALES
(Oct 3, 1983)