Legal Opinion

Nance, Inc. v. Winebarger

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided February 26, 1949PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcAMIS, J.

A. M. Winebarger and Deakins Motor Company, a corporation, defendants below, appeal for a reversal of a decree awarding complainant Nance, Incorporated, the possession of a 1948 model Oldsmobile automobile.

Nance, Incorporated, is the dealer for the manufacturer of Oldsmobile automobiles. It has a policy not to sell new cars when it is known that they will likely not be used personally by the buyer or may fall into the hands of other dealers and become the subject of speculation at prices above the list price fixed by the manufacturer. We infer that the manufacturer has a similar policy which.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1943
  2. Ashley and Gibbs v. PrestonTennessee Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Nutmeg State MacHinery Corporation v. ShufordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
  4. McArthur v. FawTennessee Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Glenn v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. International House of Talent, Inc. v. AlabamaTennessee Supreme Court · 1986
  2. General Truck Sales, Inc. v. BateyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1972
  3. State v. HollandCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1962
  4. State v. HollandCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API