Legal Opinion

Holm v. Davis

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 5, 1935No. Civ. 9365PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

In this action instituted in the Superior Court of this State in and for the County of Santa Barbara, respondents as plaintiffs sued appellant for the possession of a silver-mounted and trimmed saddle, bridle, collar, reins, romal and tie-down which had previously been sold to appellant by respondents’ assignor on a conditional sales contract (hereinafter referred to as contract) for an agreed price of $850; appellant having defaulted in payment in violation of the terms of the contract. The complaint alleges the reasonable value of the property to be $750; that the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. De Jarnatt v. MarquezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Shipp v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cty.California Supreme Court · 1930
  3. W. R. Bradshaw & Co. v. EggersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  4. Larson v. Du BainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Astell v. PhillippiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Viner v. UntrechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. LeFave v. DimondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Moss Construction Co. v. WulffsohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Cirimele v. ShinazyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Higgins v. CoyneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

4 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