Legal Opinion

California Standard Finance Corp. v. Riverside Finance Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 16, 1931No. Docket No. 160PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARMER, J., pro tem.

The facts out of which this action arose are briefly as follows: W. H. Jennér and Ethel L. Sampson, sued herein as Mrs. Edyth Sampson, were doing business under the fictitious name of Paige Sales & Service Company in Riverside, California, hereinafter called the dealer. The dealer made an arrangement with the appellant whereby appellant was to finance certain automobiles for the dealer. Under this plan, the appellant was to take the title to the automobiles financed by them from the distributors in Los Angeles, then sell said automobiles to the dealer on conditional sale…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Parke v. FranciscusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Levi v. BoothCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  4. Oakland Bank of Savings v. California Pressed Brick Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Carter v. RowleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Crestline Mobile Homes Manufacturing Co. v. Pacific Finance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Ingels v. BotelerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
  3. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. National Funding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Pacific Finance Corp. v. HendleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. General Finance Corporation v. JacksonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956

6 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