Cammile v. Sanderson
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Caret, J.:
Plaintiff’s brief admits that Raymond Cammile, Jr. had the beneficial interest in the car, but argues that the father held the legal title which, he says, cannot be questioned by this defendant. The record permits no other inference than that the son was the true owner. He paid the original down payment and all subsequent installments from his own funds; he had exclusive control and use of the car; he furnished all the fuel and paid for all the repairs. The father had no connection with it in any way save that it was registered in his name at Dover. Admittedly, it was so registered…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McWhirter v. Otis Elevator Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1941
- Farrelly v. HeuackerSupreme Court of Florida · 1935
- Knops v. OrdoricaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Burakowski v. GrustasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Steenburg v. Harry Braunstein, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Finkbiner v. MullinsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1987
- Midland Food Services, LLC v. Castle Hill Holdings V, LLCCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
- Catalfano v. HigginsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1962
- Krutz v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1991
- Morgan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Delaware · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.