Hammels v. Sentous
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hutton & Williams, Henry T. Gage, and W. I. Foley, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an action to, recover damages for the conversion of personal property. Plaintiff had judgment for six hundred and sixty dollars, and the defendants appeal.
On November 22, 1904, one E. M. Coe made and delivered to plaintiff, in the county of San Diego, his promissory note for seventeen hundred and fifty dollars, and, as security therefor, executed and delivered to plaintiff a chattel mortgage upon forty-one head of dairy heifers and one hundred and sixty-nine head of hogs, then situated in said San Diego County. The mortgage was duly acknowledged and was accompanied by the affidavit of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ruggles v. CannedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Greenville National Bank v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
- Hornthal v. . BurwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Shapard v. HynesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Ames Iron Works v. ChinnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hopper v. KeysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Motor Investment Co. v. BreslauerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- First Nat. Bank of Vinita v. GuessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Security First National Bank v. SartoriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Snodgrass v. J. I. Case Threshing MacH. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.