Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Kaeser
California Supreme Court
Decided August 19, 1925No. Docket No. Sac. 3620PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J., pro tem.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover from defendants the total sum of $13,671 and interest, together with attorney’s fee in the sum of $2,000, alleged to be due from the latter by virtue of the terms of a conditional contract of sale of certain personal property.
The cause was tried before a jury, and a directed verdict returned for the full amount prayed for in the complaint. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the defendants appeal.
The terms of the contract, in substance, and the payments thereunder made by the defendants, are correctly stated as follows in the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Thomson v. . PoorNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Sichler v. LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- First National Bank of Los Angeles v. MaxwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Van Allen v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Adams v. Southern California First National BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- United States v. Frank M. Chichester, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Aircraftsmen Company, BankruptCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- McNeece v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Oddo v. HeddeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Luke v. Mercantile Acceptance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1952
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.