Plastino

Plastino v. Mills

Good Law
236 F.2d 32
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 31, 1956No. 14789California1,187 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chambers, J.

On November 7, 1945, Mills and wife as vendors, by written contract agreed to sell on monthly installment terms to R. F. Hogan and Sally Hogan a forest tract in Tillamook County, Oregon. Within three months thereafter the Hogans transferred to Michael R. Plastino and Ruth C. Plastino their interest as ven-dees. The Plastinos were the plaintiffs below and are appellants here.

Early in the life of the Mills-Hogan contract the Plastinos’ performance became rag tag. This seems to have been wfith the written assent of Mills. However, the contract had a strict forfeiture clause in it providing that one waiver of a late payment should not be construed as a waiver of another late payment or held to change the terms of the bargain.

Late in January, 1951, Mills wrote the Plastinos that because of their failure to pay installments he was terminating the contract pursuant to its terms and forfeiting their interest as successors to the original vendees. Almost simultaneously the Plastinos tendered a payment of $25.00, the amount they had been accustomed to send the vendors each month when they were financially able to do so. This payment was refused by Mills and promptly returned.

After…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.