Legal Opinion

Capitol Motor Corp. v. Harry M. Lasker, Inc.

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 12, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This is an action of detinue instituted by the defendant in error (hereinafter called plaintiff) against plaintiff in error (hereinafter called defendant), seeking to recover of defendant eight specified automobiles, which plaintiff claimed it was entitled to by virtue of a written contract, and eight trust receipts, each for a specified car.

The plaintiff is a New York corporation engaged in the business of supplying credit to dealers in automobiles.

The defendant was engaged in the business of buying and selling automobiles, wholesale and retail, at Richmond, Virginia.

On the first day of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boice v. Finance & Guaranty Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1920
  2. Hoge & Hutchinson v. TurnerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
  3. Edmunds & Blackford v. Hobbie Piano Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1899
  4. Partlow v. LickliterSupreme Court of Virginia · 1902
  5. Hardy v. Norfolk Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1885

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Finance & Guaranty Co. v. OppenhimerSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Janney v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  3. Seventh Street Garage Co. v. MercerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1928
  4. Universal Credit Co. v. Botetourt Motor Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1942
  5. Oppenhimer v. Finance & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1925

4 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