Legal Opinion

McMillan Process Co. v. Brown

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 8, 1939No. Civ. 6112PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONCUR, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff in the above-entitled action, the respondent herein, and C. IT. Brown, one of the above-named defendants and appellants, entered into a conditional sales contract on the 24th day of August, 1924, by which the respondent gave and granted to said C. H. Brown the right to possess, use, and operate a certain patented machine intended for the purpose of defiberizing wood. The contract also provided for the delivery to said C. H. Brown of additional machines when and if required, and pursuant thereto an additional machine was delivered to said C. H. Brown. Said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Richter v. Union Land & Stock Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  2. San Diego Construction Co. v. MannixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Rose v. FoordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Wood v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Taback v. GreenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. ResnickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. William R. Le Vecke and Reed Levecke v. Griesedieck Western Brewery Co., a Corporation, and Carling Brewing Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
  3. Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. ResnickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API