Bear v. Colonial Finance Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SHERICK, PJ.
The plaintiff in error makes three contentions, the first being that the conduct of the defendant’s agents on the day of his purchase estops the defendant company from now asserting its mortgage; second, that defendant’s conduct after learning of plaintiff’s purchase constituted a waiver of the defendant’s chattel security; and, third, that the method and manner adopted by the defendant in repossessing the car constituted a conversion thereof.
In view of the failure of proof hereinbefore indicated, there can be no estoppel in this suit. It is elemental that knowledge on the part of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilson Motor Co. v. DunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Willis v. WhittleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Ben Cooper Motor Co. v. AmeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- M. J. Rose Co. v. LoweryOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
3Cited by7 opinions
- Motor Equipment Co. v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Fulks v. FulksOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Bruce Comly French v. Bank One, Lima N.A. (In Re Rehab Project, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1999
- Colonial Finance Co. v. BearOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.