Legal Opinion

La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph &. Loeb

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 28, 1930No. 6 Div. 537PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROWN, X.

Prior to the enactment of the statute, now section '6898 of the Code 1923, contracts for the sale of personal property, with condition that the title should remain in the vendor until the purchase money was paid, were valid as to the condition, though not in writing, even as against purchasers for value and without notice. Weinstein v. Freyer, 93 Ala. 257, 9 So. 285, 12 L. R. A. 700; 24 R. C. L. 455, § 752.

The purpose and effect of the statute was ito make void the condition as to the protected class — originally purchasers for value, subsequent mortgagees, and judgment creditors not…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. MinderhoutSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  2. Weinstein v. FreyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  3. Stewart v. ClemensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & LoebSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  5. Warrant Warehouse Co. v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. FosterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Electrical Research Products v. FordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API