Legal Opinion

Weber v. Baessler

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1893PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County.

1Opinion of the CourtThomson, J.

This action is for the possession of personal property. The cause was submitted to the court below on the following agreed statement of facts:

On June 1, 1889, Thursie & Anderson, who were partners doing a retail shoe business in the city of Denver, ordered from the defendants in error, plaintiffs below, who were partners engaged in manufacturing and selling at wholesale shoes, in Buffalo, New York, a bill of shoes, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $297.

The plaintiffs, Baessler & Co., filled the order and shipped the same June 19, 1889, by railroad freight to Thursie & Anderson at…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buckley v. Furniss & StickneyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
  2. Morris v. ShryockMississippi Supreme Court · 1874
  3. More, Reynolds & Co. v. LottNevada Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Kingman & Co. v. DenisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Clark v. BartlettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Port of Seattle v. Department of Public ServiceWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Gregg v. Bi-Metallic BankColorado Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Gregg v. Bi-Metallic BankColorado Court of Appeals · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API