Legal Opinion
Khan v. Zemansky
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 13, 1922No. Civ. No. 2453PublishedCited by 8 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
Plaintiff was given judgment against both defendants for the possession of a diamond ring or the value thereof in case delivery could not be made.
[1] It is contended “that there is no basis for the judgment against defendant Perky. The evidence shows without dispute that he was a salesman in the store of defendant Zemansky. ’ ’ The complaint alleges that the defendants came into possession of the ring and retained possession thereof. The answer alleges “that on or about the tenth day of March, 1920, said plaintiff left with said defendants a diamond ring, which was the only diamond ring…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. MarkhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Teese v. HuntingdonSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- People v. CordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. LoveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Davis v. California Powder-WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by8 opinions
- Alford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Lindsey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Beasley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Gildehaus v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
- People v. LimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.