Legal Opinion

Fissel v. Monroe

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 28, 1917No. Civ. No. 1614PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

The first paragraph of the verified complaint is as follows: ‘ ‘ That on the twenty-fourth day of July, 1915, at and in the county of Yolo, state of California, plaintiffs were the owners and in the possession and, at the time of the filing of this complaint, are the owners of the following described goods and chattels, of the value of seven hundred dollars, to wit: 640 sacks of barley.” It is then alleged that defendant wrongfully took said goods from the possession of plaintiffs; that demand was made of defendant for the possession thereof, which was refused, and that plaintiffs are damaged…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jeffers v. Easton, Eldridge & Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Davis v. McFarlaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Bartlett Estate Co. v. FraserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  4. Commercial Bank of Santa Ana v. PritchardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. O'Brien v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Globe Grain & Milling Co. v. DrenthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  2. In re Liquimatic Systems, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API