Legal Opinion

Schafstall v. Eastbourne Garage, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 10, 1940No. 5789PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HAMILTON, PJ.

This law suit originated in a replevin action brought by plaintiff-appellee in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, to replevin a Hudson, model 84, automobile, which defendant had placed in the garage of the defendant, and on which the defendant, C. I. T. Corporation claimed a mortgage interest.

The plaintiff Schafstall purchased the automobile from one Levy, doing business as Belveder Motor Sales Company, a retailer, dealing in Hudson and Terraplane automobiles. At that time the certificate of title law was not in effect. The law applicable was covered by the old bill of…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Adkins v. DamronCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API