Legal Opinion

Plummer v. Kingsley

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1951PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBband, J.

The plaintiff Plummer brings this action in replevin against the defendant Kingsley for the recovery of a certain automobile or its value. The answer asserts title in defendant based on estoppel. After issue joined, the case was tried by the court without a jury. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment that the plaintiff recover possession of the automobile, or in case delivery could not be had, that he recover judgment in the sum of $600, the value of the property. The defendant appeals.

The complaint is in the usual form, alleging plaintiff’s right to…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. National Safe Deposit, Sav. & Trust Co. of DC v. HibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Russell v. American Bell Telephone Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  3. State Bank v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Rodliff v. DallingerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
  5. Johnson v. IankovetzOregon Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. TauscherOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. CrutchfieldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  3. South Seattle Auto Auction, Inc. v. LaddOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Brunette v. Idaho Veneer CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Richardson v. BouthillierOregon Supreme Court · 1951

11 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