Pearce v. Shurtz

CROCKETT, Justice.

I dissent. I believe that no forfeiture of the contract was properly effected.

The essential facts are stated in the main opinion; I add only those that are necessary to the expression of this dissent.

Pearce took the assignment from Call after the 1949 payment was 58 days past due (2 days short of the expiration of the grace period) apparently for the express purpose of forfeiting defendants out of the property. No. demand for payment was made during the grace period and Pearce made none. He waited but a few days after the grace period had expired, then gave only one notice,…