Legal Opinion

Freitas v. Marsh

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 6, 1945No. Civ. 12837PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWard, J.

This is an appeal by defendant in an action for claim and delivery involving the sale of an automobile. It is contended that the facts as found compel a finding of ostensible agency in the seller in negotiating a sale of plaintiff’s automobile, and that the trial court erred in not protecting defendant in his claimed title.

Plaintiff loaned the automobile in question to one Stone for personal use during a short period when Stone’s car was out of order. Stone used the borrowed automobile to convey plaintiff to and from work. He also used it to peddle eggs. While the car was in Stone’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Ernst v. SearleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Carter v. RowleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Harris v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  5. County First National Bank v. Coast Dairies & Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Yanchor v. KaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  3. Associated Creditors' Agency v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Correa v. Quality Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Medak v. CoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API