Legal Opinion

Musselman v. Grossman

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1928No. 4981PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BAKER, Commissioner.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover from the defendant certain sums claimed to be due to them from the Broadway Oriole. It is alleged the defendant purchased from the debtor its stock of goods in bulk and its fixtures not in the ordinary course of trade and that no effort was made to comply with the provisions of the Bulk Sales Law, C. S., sec. 5752 et seq. The amended complaint does not allege the value of the stock or fixtures or the amount of the purchase price. The defendant by answer denied generally the allegations of the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Jaques & Tinsley Co. v. Carstarphen Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. Stuart v. Elk Horn Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. Owosso Carriage & Sleigh Co. v. McIntosh & WarrenTexas Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Fecheimer-Keifer Co. v. BurtonTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Gerlach Mercantile Co. v. Hughes-Bozarth-Anderson Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1916

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Boise Ass'n of Credit Men, Ltd. v. Glenns Ferry Meat Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Cornelius v. J & R Motor Supply CorporationCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1971
  3. Albano v. Motor Center of Pocatello, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Second Nat. Bank of Houston v. SettegastCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  5. Second Nat. Bank of Houston v. SettegastCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API