Legal Opinion

Cline v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 12, 1929No. Docket No. 3576Published

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.

This is one of the actions growing out of the contract and transactions set forth in Campbell v. Smith (No. 3574), ante, p. 689 [274 Pac. 758], to which reference is hereby made for a more complete statement of facts. The plaintiff herein is the assignee and agent of the Falls Rubber Company. He prosecutes this action to recover possession of automobile tires and tubes of the alleged value of $8,000. He took possession of the property under a claim and delivery bond before the trial. Verdict and judgment went for the defendant for the return of the property or its value in the sum of $8,000.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Campbell v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API