Legal Opinion

Lininger Implement Co. v. Queen City Foundry Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 4, 1923No. 10,353PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Campbell

This action by the Lininger ‘ Implement Company, as plaintiff, against The Queen City Foundry' Company, as defendant, would be trover at the common law. Its object is to recover damages for the conversion by the defendant of one hundred and five (105) Giddings beet pullers, the property of the plaintiff. The answer alleges that defendant has always recognized plaintiff’s ownership of these beet pullers. They were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for reconstruction, and were rebuilt, and, after completion of the work, have always been, and now are, subject to delivery to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Omaha & Grant Smelting & Refining Co. v. TaborSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  2. Crosby v. StrattonColorado Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Murphy v. HobbsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Tinkler (In Re Tinkler)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 2004
  2. Byron v. York Investment CompanySupreme Court of Colorado · 1956
  3. Hardie v. PetersonMontana Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Davis v. American National Bank of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961
  5. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. LevySupreme Court of Colorado · 1929

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

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

Powered by the Exa API