Legal Opinion

Eatonville State Bank v. Marshall

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1932No. 23628. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

— This is a replevin action, wherein appellant sues to recover an automobile and damages for its detention, or, in the alternative, for its full value.

The material facts are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows:

Appellant was the owner of a 1929 Ford automobile, acquired from a Ford dealer in Eatonville in satisfaction of a debt. In order to realize on this ear, it turned it over to tbe Kirkland Motor Company, of Kirkland, a dealer in tbe products of tbe Ford Motor Company, giving tbe Kirkland Motor Company permission to exbibit and demonstrate tbe car to prospective purchasers;…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State Bank v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Linn v. ReidWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Breithaupt v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Armour v. SeixasWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Long v. McAvoyWashington Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Plummer v. KingsleyOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Winters v. BirchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  3. Mori v. Chicago National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1954
  4. South Seattle Auto Auction, Inc. v. LaddOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  5. City National Bank & Trust Co. v. PyleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980

1 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