Legal Opinion
Feigin v. Kutchor
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 30, 1951No. Civ. 7886PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.
Plaintiff filed a complaint containing two causes of action, the first being in claim and delivery to recover possession of a compressor and its attachments, or the value thereof; and the second being to recover for the alleged conversion of certain lumber, plumbing fixtures and materials, gasoline, oil and dynamite fuses and caps. The reasonable value of the compressor and attachments was alleged to be $2,500, and the value of the materials was alleged to be $2,117.
The answer denied the plaintiff was the owner of the compressor and alleged that defendant owned it “by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Juchert v. California Water Service Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
- Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Meyer v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- California Gasoline Retailers v. Regal Petroleum Corp. of Fresno, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Crimmins v. GouldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Horton v. HortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Miller v. Republic Grocery, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1952
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.