Legal Opinion
Moxley v. Robertson
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 24, 1959No. Civ. 5987PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiff Elayne H. Moxley purchased two Intertype machines and appurtenant equipment from the Intertype Corporation on a conditional sales contract. The terms of this conditional sales contract prohibited removal of the machines from their location in Long Beach and further prohibited assignment of the vendee’s interest. On July 21, 1956, the machinery was moved from Long Beach to defendant Eobertson’s place of business in Seal Beach. It appears from the record that the conditional vendor knew of and consented to the removal of the machinery.
There is conflicting evidence…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Hammett v. McIntyreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Guardianship of LyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Rodgers v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Mercantile Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. HaagCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Buehler v. SbardellatiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Harris-Intertype Corp. v. RobertsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.