Legal Opinion

Automobile Underwriters' Co. v. Rhinehold

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided December 5, 1923No. 7045PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFly, C. J.

Appellant sued appellee to recover on four promissory notes executed by him, amounting in the aggregate to $180, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a Jordan automobile executed to the San Antonio Cadillac Company; the consideration for said notes and mortgage being the sale to ap-pellee of sa'id Jordan automobile. It was alleged that the notes and mortgage "had, for a valuable consideration, been transferred' and assigned to appellant. Tbe reasonable value of tbe automobile was alleged by appellant to be' $450. Appellee admitted bis liability for tbe $180, evidenced by tbe promissory…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Porter v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1887
  2. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1891
  3. Cunningham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Granger v. New Jersey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Bomar v. Insurors Indemnity & Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1950
  3. Bomar v. Insurors Indemnity & Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API