George J. Birkel Co. v. Nast
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. M. T. Dooling, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to recover upon a contract for the conditional sale of a piano made by plaintiff to defendant. Judg ment went for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and it appeals from the order denying its motion, as well as from the judgment.
At the time of the delivery of the piano to defendant she executed a contract whereby she agreed to pay therefor to plaintiff the sum of six hundred dollars, as follows: Ten dollars upon the signing of the contract, and at least ten dollars on the eighth day of each month thereafter, together with interest, until the whole sum was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Shepard v. MillsIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Muncy v. BrainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Elsom v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
3Cited by11 opinions
- Johnson v. KaeserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Martin Music Co. v. RobbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Dong Suk Shin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Prestige Ltd. Partnership-Concord v. East Bay Car Wash Partners (In Re Prestige Ltd. Partnership-Concord)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 1997
- Brice v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.