Citation Numbers: 215 N.W. 943, 204 Iowa 737
Judges: Morling, Evans, De Graee, Albert, Wagner
Filed Date: 11/15/1927
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/9/2024
The only issue here is between the vendor of the furnace and the vendor of the real property. The issue was tried on the plaintiff's petition and the defendant's petition of intervention. The facts are stipulated, or proved without conflict. Intervener sold the house and lot in question on May 17, 1923, to Pope on contract. On June 28, 1923, plaintiff sold Pope the furnace in controversy, and installed it. The intervener's contract with Pope contained the ordinary forfeiture clause: that, on any default on the part of the vendee, the agreement shall be void, and he shall have no claim against the *Page 738 vendor or to the property, and that any claim the vendee may have had up to that time, by reason of any payments or improvements made thereunder, shall, on all such defaults, cease and determine and become forfeited, without any declaration of forfeiture, etc. The vendee took possession. He bought the furnace of plaintiff under a conditional sale contract, providing that the furnace should remain personal property, and that the title should remain in plaintiff until final payment. Neither contract was recorded. The vendee defaulted in both contracts. Intervener served notice of forfeiture on June 19, 1924. Pope surrendered the contract and surrendered possession. There was no arrangement between intervener and Pope or between intervener and plaintiff for the installation of a furnace, and intervener knew nothing about it until after it was installed. The furnace was set on a concrete base constructed therefor and permanently attached to it. Hot-air pipes and registers were installed in the usual way. Plaintiff took out a writ of replevin, and removed the furnace. Intervener demands judgment for its return, or for the value, $219.35, and $35 cost of installation. The case was submitted to the trial court on the merits, and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
The case is ruled by Des Moines Imp. Co. v. Holland FurnaceCo.,
EVANS, C.J., and De GRAFF, ALBERT, and WAGNER, JJ., concur. *Page 739