Legal Opinion

Breeden v. Elliott Bros.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1938PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKinney

By bill complainants seek to recover a decree for the value of an automobile alleged to have been converted by Elliott Brothers, referred to herein as defendants. The chancellor dismissed the bill. The Court of Appeals reversed the chancellor.

The facts are that on June 11,1932, defendants, a partnership composed of Raymond, Fletcher and Robert Elliott, automobile dealers, sold complainants a new Plymouth sedan, taking* their right and title note for the unpaid purchase money in the sum of $592', payable $37 per month for sixteen months. Thereafter they negotiated the note to the W. A. Parker…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Southern Ice & Coal Co. v. AlleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Murray v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Russell v. Clinton Motor Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Mitchell v. Automobile Sales Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Limited Partnership v. Bluff City Community Development CorporationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2012
  2. Massachusetts Bay Insurance v. Vic Koenig Leasing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
  3. Barger v. WebbTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Rondal Akers v. Prime Succession of Tennessee, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Lance Productions, Inc. v. Commerce Union BankCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1988

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

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

Powered by the Exa API