Legal Opinion

Kidd v. Condry

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided July 8, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPortrum, J.

William Horace Kidd brought this action against W. M. Condry to recover payments made on a 1937 Plymouth automobile purchased from Condry basing his action upon a noneom-pliance with section 7291 of the Code in failing to advertise and sell the. car within ten days under the method directed by the statute. The case was heard by a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant, and an order entered dismissing the suit. The case is here for a review.

It is first insisted that there is no evidence to support the verdict and the trial judge erred in failing to grant the plaintiff’s motion…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Murray v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Rice v. Lusky Furniture Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Shanks v. PhillipsTennessee Supreme Court · 1932
  4. B a C Corporation v. FrancisTennessee Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Dillard v. Ball Bros., Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1935

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1966
  2. Investors Acceptance Co. of Livingston v. James Talcott, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1969
  3. Williams v. BridgefordCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
  4. Pack v. BoyerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1968
  5. Judd v. Fruehauf Trailer Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API