Margolin v. Franklin
Illinois Appellate Court
270 N.E.2d 140 (1971)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Melvin and Betty Franklin (defendants) signed an installment contract to buy a car from Essco Motors (Essco) (plaintiff). The Franklins signed a promissory note for the $1,656 that remained due after their down payment. The Franklins’ monthly payments were due on the 15th of each month. The Franklins paid their monthly payments on time in February and March 1966. The Franklins testified that in April, they received verbal permission from Essco to change their payment due date to the 27th of each month. The Franklins then made each payment from April to October 1966 by the 27th of each month. Essco accepted each of these payments. In November 1966, Essco could not reach the Franklins to track down their monthly payment. As a result, Essco had the car repossessed. Essco then sued on the promissory note. The Franklins filed a counterclaim, asserting that Essco’s repossession of the car was fraudulent and constituted conversion. The trial court ruled in favor of the Franklins, granting their counterclaim. Essco appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Adesko, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.