Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The instrument in question was, in effect, a contract of sale, and not a lease or bailment. (Heryford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 235; Silver Bow M. & M. Co. v. Lowry, 6 Mont. 288; In re Seymour, 83 Mich. 496; Miller v. Steen, 30 Cal. 403; Bailey v. Hervey, 135 Mass. 172; De Saint Ger-main v. Wind, 3 Wash. T. 189; McGinnis v. Savage, 29 W. Va. 362; Harkness v. Russell, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 51; Hart v. Barney, 7 Fed. Rep. 553; Farquhar v. McAlevy, 142 Pa. St. 233; Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741; Baldwin v. Van Wagener, 33 W. Va. 293; Gorham v. Holden, 79 Me. 317; Hervey v. R. I. Locomotive Worhs, 93 U. S. 664;…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Heryford v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Terry v. . MungerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Hays v. Jordan & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Hendy v. DinkerhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Bailey v. HerveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Steiner v. RowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Van Allen v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- In Re City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Smith v. BarberIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- McCollough v. Home Ins. Co. of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1909
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.