Hass Bros. v. McLaughlin
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts).
It is conceded that, the contracts being made in and to be performed in California, the laws of that state control. Section 1140 of the California Civil Code provides: “The-title to personal property, sold or exchanged, passes to the buyer whenever the parties agree upon a present transfer, and the thing itself is identified, whether it is separated from other things or not.”
It is obvious that neither the coffee nor fruit, etc., was identified at the execution of the contract. Neither does it appear that any of the merchandise was set apart or used by appellant as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Gage Lumber Co. v. McEldowneyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- Walti v. GabaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Wanee v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- American Factors, Ltd. v. GossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FisherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Levenson v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1957