Liver v. Mills
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Walter Bordwell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
On May 7, 1906, the appellants, who were the owners of a certain automobile, made a contract of conditional sale thereof to S. A. Thompson and J. S. Miller, whereby said vendees were to have possession of the automobile, but title thereto was to remain vested in appellants until the full purchase price was paid. Thompson and Miller paid all of the purchase price except the sum of $132, which was due on May 27, 1906. On June 23, 1906, they sold and delivered the automobile to James J. Liver, respondent herein. On June 26, 1906, Mills and Price, the appellants, instituted an action of claim and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Van Allen v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Palmer v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Miller v. SteenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Rayfield v. Van MeterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Bray v. LoweryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- McGibbon v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Oakland Bank of Savings v. California Pressed Brick Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Morris v. AllenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Tomboy Gold & Copper Co. v. MarksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.