Legal Opinion

C.I.T. Corporation v. Naudack

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1934No. Civil No. 3436PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLockwood, J.

J. D. Naudack, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Anna C. McCabe, hereinafter called defendant, on a promissory note in the sum of $255 given him by defendant. At the same time he caused a writ of attachment to issue, and the sheriff levied upon all the right, title, claim and interest of the defendant in and to an automobile described in the return on the writ as “One 1930 Hupmobile Cabriolet, Motor No. C7344, 1932 Arizona license No. 1B2T ’ ’; the attached car being at the time in the possession of the defendant. Thereafter and in due time C. I. T. Corporation, a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. First Mortgage Loan Co. v. DurfeeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
  2. MacCallum-Donahoe Finance Co. v. WarrenWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Huber v. CloudSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
  4. Humphreys Savings Bank v. Carpenter and HartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. McQueen v. TenisonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Empire State Chair Co., Inc. v. BeldockCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  2. Minneapolis-Moline Co. v. Capitol Plumbing, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API