Legal Opinion

Sorensen v. Pagenkopf

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 4, 1940No. 34,710PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This was an action to replevin a Ford automobile. Judgment was for the plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

The petition alleged that plaintiffs were a copartnership and engaged in the business of financing the buying of automobiles; that about the 3d day of April, 1939, Alice M. Schaaf made her note in writing to the Lydick Motor Service, a copartnership composed of Paul Schimming and W. H. Schaaf; that this note was assigned to plaintiffs on April 4, 1939, and that plaintiffs were the-holders of it; that to secure payment on the note on April 3,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gump Investment Co. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1925
  2. Morris v. Firemen's InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1926
  3. Guaranty Discount Corp. v. BowersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1927
  4. Trapani v. Universal Credit Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  5. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1950
  2. Price v. Universal CIT Credit CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Sims v. SuggSupreme Court of Kansas · 1948
  4. Weaver v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1949
  5. Rauh v. DumlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1951

7 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