Legal Opinion
James v. Allen
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 19, 1937No. Civ. 5744PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
Plaintiffs began this action to recover from the defendant the sum of $561, being the amount alleged to be due for and on account of a conditional sales contract, where the property was repossessed by the seller and resold. The original contract covered personal property of the sale value of $1,025, conditioned for certain instalment payments, which were not made.
The plaintiffs, assignees of the seller, took possession of the property, sold the same, and began this action for the balance alleged to be due on account of the contract price. The defendant had judgment. From this judgment the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Johnson v. KaeserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Matteson v. Equitable Mining & Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Frankel v. RosenfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Cocores v. AssimopoulosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Jeanson v. ZanglCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
- B.K.K. Co. v. SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Kipp v. CozensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Budget Finance Plan v. Sav-On Food Club, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Construction MacHinery Co. v. Willard & Rodman, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.