Legal Opinion

Moskovitz v. Lefrancois

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 29, 1932No. Docket No. 7756PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Appellant sued to recover the possession of certain furniture or its value, together with damages for its detention. After trial by the court, respondent recovered judgment for the value of the furniture, less rent due appellant. Claiming that respondent’s cross-complaint stated a cause of action for the conversion of the furniture occurring after the commencement of this action and arguing that such an entirely separate and distinct cause of action is not a proper matter of cross-complaint, appellant assigns as error the overruling of his general demurrer to the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Summerville v. Stockton Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Latimer v. Capay Valley Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Pico v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Erreca v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Bolander v. GentryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re Storage Technology Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 1985
  2. Smith v. Royal Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Spencer Kennellt, Ltd. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Space Properties, Inc. v. Tool Research Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. City of Cypress v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API