Legal Opinion

Cherry's Incorporated v. Sharpensteen

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1928No. Civil No. 2676PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.

— Cherry’s Incorporated brought this action of replevin against defendant, Sharpensteen, to recover the possession or value of a Hudson automobile. It appears that at Los Angeles, California, on October 6th, 1925, one Rose Moore bought the automobile from the J. K. Fonk Finance Company, on a contract conditioned that the title should remain in the seller until the purchase price of $990 was fully paid, such sum to be paid in monthly installments extending over a considerable period of time. On the same date the seller sold, assigned and transferred all its right, title and interest in and to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Felt v. FeltWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Nettles v. CarsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
  3. Greer v. BirdSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. Cache Auto Co. v. Central GarageUtah Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Bradshaw v. Kleiber Motor Truck Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bayham v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
  2. Bank of America v. J & S Auto RepairsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  3. C.I.T. Corporation v. JorgensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API