Legal Opinion

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Baker

New York City Court

Decided November 25, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPette, J.

This is a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiff, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

From the somewhat lengthy affidavits and respective briefs, exhibits, etc., I have found the following salient and undisputed facts, which present a novel question of law in this State:

On the 21st day of May, 1936, one Fred Behan purchased an automobile from Edande Motors, Inc., and executed and delivered a certain conditional sales contract. Thereafter the said conditional sales contract was assigned to the plaintiff. The conditional sales contract was duly filed pursuant to…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. McNeil v. . the Tenth National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  3. Commercial Bank v. KortrightCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
  4. Weaver v. . BardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  5. Ballard v. . BurgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1869

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bateman v. ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
  2. Briley v. Donald Knudtson ImplementNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Meisel Tire Co. v. FishmanCity of New York Municipal Court · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API