New Liverpool Etc. Co. v. Western Etc. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Purcell Rowe, C. H. Rippey, A. Haines, and J. S. Chapman, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The action was for the possession of forty-six hundred tons of salt, or its value, if possession could not be recovered.
The salt in controversy consisted of salt sold by the Western Salt Company to another corporation, known as the Amalgamated Salt Company, by a written contract executed December 20, 1902. At the time of the sale the salt was left in the possession of the Western Salt Company, in accordance with the terms of the contract. Afterwards, on January 2, 1904, the Amalgamated Salt Company…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Faulkner v. First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Rice v. WhitmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Tome v. DuboisSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Curtin v. KowalskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Retsloff v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Commercial Credit Co. v. PeakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Benzler v. Van FleetCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Fran-Well Heater Co. v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Maurice Mercantile Co. v. American Employers' InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.