Roulland v. Gray
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. H. Z. Austin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an action to recover the balance due on account of the sale of an automobile alleged to have been made by the Roullard-Brown Auto Company to the defendant, the account having been assigned to the plaintiff.
The transaction for the purchase of the automobile was conducted by Hazel I. Gray, the wife of the defendant, and as part of the purchase price the sellers took her promissory note for $440; the machine was delivered to her, and the balance due thereon, as evidenced by the note, was charged to her personally upon their books. Notwithstanding these facts the plaintiff seeks…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Born v. CastleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Nelson v. WebbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Pelton v. Supervisors of Crawford CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. WiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Hulsman v. IrelandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Howland v. DoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Overstreet v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
- Howland v. DoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935