Legal Opinion

Middlecamp v. Zumwalt

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1929No. Docket No. 3791PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

The plaintiff began this action to recover possession of a certain “Harris” harvester and 55-horse-power motor, together with certain appurtenances described in the complaint, constituting a harvesting outfit, and in the event possession could not he had, then for the recovery of $2,000 as damages. The complaint alleges that on the twenty-first day of March, 1928, the plaintiff was in the actual possession and entitled to the possession of said property. To this .complaint the defendant made answer setting up conditional contracts showing that the property involved was sold by the defendant…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stevinson v. JoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Rottman v. HevenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Henehan v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Dollar v. International Banking Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1910
  5. Lynch v. Sable-Oberteuffer-Peterson, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Tahoe National Bank v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Lifton v. HarshmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. D. L. Godbey & Sons Construction Co. v. DeaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  5. De Roulet v. MitchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

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