Pezel v. Yerex
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.
This is an action to recover damages for the breach of a warranty of title in the sale of an automobile by defendant to plaintiff. Judgment passed for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Defendant sold the automobile to plaintiff on February 1, 1919. The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that by the contract of sale the defendant warranted that he had a good and unencumbered title. On March 1, 1919, plaintiff sold the machine to one E. S. Faxon, and warranted his title thereto to be good and unencumbered. On September 19, 1919, Faxon brought an action against the plaintiff here to.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Drennan v. BunnIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Smith v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Morgan v. HaleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1907
- Consolidated Hand-Method Lasting Machine Co. v. BradleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Hovey v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Estate of BevelleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Agnew v. CroninCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- De La Hoya v. Slim's Gun ShopAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1978
- Bryson v. International Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co. v. Swan Rubber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.