Legal Opinion
McMillen v. Pippin
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 10, 1963No. Civ. 20446PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSalsman, J.
Plaintiff obtained a deficiency judgment against the defendant arising out of the sale of a BU 135 Skagit, a large piece of logging equipment. The conditional sales contract of the parties was entered into in April of 1957. Defendant was unable to make any substantial use of the Skagit and in 1958 he parked it in the woods, built a cover for it, and removed the starting motor. Defendant paid only $850 of the $8,000 purchase price. From time to time after 1958 plaintiff and defendant discussed the resale of the machine, and both parties tried to find a buyer. In 1959 defendant informed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Matteson v. Equitable Mining & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. DickinsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Standard Auto Sales Co. v. LehmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Hill v. DominquezAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Elster's Sales v. El Bodrero Hotel, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- B.K.K. Co. v. SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- J. T. Jenkins Co. v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- CIT Corporation v. HessIdaho Supreme Court · 1964
- James Talcott, Inc. v. GeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968