Morris v. Fiat Motor Sales Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. George H. Cabaniss, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
From the evidence in this case it appears that in the month of March, 1913, the plaintiff purchased from the defendants a second-hand automobile styled Pope-Hartford through the efforts of one Shaw, who was employed by the defendants as a mechanic and demonstrator, but who, under the evidence in this case, must be regarded as the agent of the defendants in the sale of the car in question. During the negotiations for the same Shaw represented to the plaintiff, among other things, that the car was a ‘ ‘ 1912 model. ’ ’ Within a month after the purchase the plaintiff discovered that the car was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dow v. SwainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Luitweiler Pumping Engine Co. v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Maxon-Nowlin Co. v. NorswingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Pepper v. VedovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Bergeler v. MichaelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Alvarez v. Felker Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Porter v. GestriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Pendell v. WarrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Quality Paper Box Co. v. Westminster Motors, Inc.Boston Municipal Court · 1951
- Best Buick, Inc. v. WelcomeMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.