Studebaker Bros. v. Mau
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to the District Court, Uinta County, HoN. David H. Craig, Judge. Replevin by the Studebaker Brothers Company of Utah, a corporation, against Frank A. Mau. From a judgment for defendant the plaintiff brought error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Where property is delivered under a conditional sale contract in Utah, where the contract is not required to be recorded, the vendor has the right to follow and take possession of his property wherever it may be found.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Uinta County, HoN. David H. Craig, Judge. Replevin by the Studebaker Brothers Company of Utah, a corporation, against Frank A. Mau. From a judgment for defendant the plaintiff brought error. The facts are stated in the opinion. Where property is delivered under a conditional sale contract in Utah, where the contract is not required to be recorded, the vendor has the right to follow and take possession of his property wherever it may be found. It is held in a majority of the states that conditional sales are valid not only against the immediate purchaser, but also…
1Opinion of the Court
Beard, Justice.
The plaintiff in error commenced this action in justice's court to recover the possession of a buggy. There was a trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for defendant Mau. *363Plaintiff appealed to the District Court, where the case was tried to a jury, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant and judgment was rendered thereon against plaintiff, ■ a motion for a new trial was denied, exceptions taken and plaintiff brings error.
The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the property by virtue of a written contract, which is as follows :
“3047…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Smith & Co. v. McLeanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Green v. Van BuskirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Cunningham & Co. v. CuretonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Hornthal v. . BurwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. McAdamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Studebaker Bros. v. MauWyoming Supreme Court · 1905
- Studebaker Bros. Co. of Utah v. WitcherNevada Supreme Court · 1921
- Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. WestMissouri Court of Appeals · 1953
- Capital Lincoln-Mercury v. General Motors Acceptance CorporationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.