Legal Opinion

Lundblade v. Pierce

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 1928No. Docket No. 3425PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (R. L.), J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to replevin an automobile. While the car was in the possession of Edward Lovell, the registered owner thereof, under an executory contract of purchase from the respondent, the machine was left at the garage of Clarence Norton in Eureka for repairs. While the machine was in this garage for repairs the respondent commenced an action against Norton for a debt of $121 alleged to have been due upon an entirely different transaction and attempted to attach Norton’s claim against Lovell for the repairs…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Peerless Insurance & Brokerage Co. v. Dwyer Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. National Diversified Services, Inc. v. BernsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  2. C. I. T. Corp. v. Biltmore GarageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Jess H. Young & Son, Inc. v. Victory Tool & Die Co.California Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. People v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. People v. PhotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

1 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