Conlin v. Studebaker Brothers
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George C. Mansfield, and Horace S. Wilson, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendants had sold him an electric automobile, for which he had paid one thousand seven hundred dollars as follows: Three hundred dollars in cash and a note for three hundred dollars to the defendant, Studebaker Brothers Company of California, and 204 shares of stock of the Peerless Brick and Artificial Stone Company, of the agreed value of one thousand, one hundred dollars, transferred to the defendant Dresbach. It was alleged that the defendants had falsely represented that the automobile was new and in first-class condition; that the plaintiff,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kelley v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Westerfeld v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Sanchez v. McMahonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sharp v. Mortgage Security Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Swasey v. De L'EtancheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Zeller v. MilliganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Joanaco Projects, Inc. v. Nixon & Tierney Constr. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.