Parker-Harris Co. v. Tate
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM SHELBY Appeal from tlie Circuit Court of Shelby County— PI. W. Laitghlin, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Williams
The sole question for determination is one of law: Is the lien on an automobile,’ given by Acts 1905, chapter, 173, to the person injured thereby in a collision, superior to the rights of the conditional vendor of the machine fixed at a date prior to the infliction of the injuries but after the passage of the legislative act*?
The court of civil appeals bas answered in favor of the claim of the person injured. We hold to the contrary.
The ease was tried in the court below on an agreed statement of facts which, in substance, was:
The plaintiff company is an automobile dealer in Memphis, and sold…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Reeves & Co. v. RussellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Daugherty v. ThomasMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Waters Co. v. . GerardNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Shaw v. WebbTennessee Supreme Court · 1914
- Des Moines Brick Manufacturing Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Young v. MasciSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Director of Fin., Pr. Geo's Co. v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- State v. HazelwoodAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. ChampagneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.