Pacific Finance & Investment Co. v. Pierce
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. C. N. Andréws. Judge. Modified and affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, P. J.
The plaintiff, claiming the right to do so, under the provisions of a contract of purchase and sale, took possession of a certain automobile, and brought this action against the defendants, seeking to be subrogated to the right of the defendant Pierce to perform a contract, entered into between the Greer-Bobbins Co. and Pierce, to purchase the car. Judgment was for the defendants, and confirmed the right of possession of the automobile to the Greer-Robbins Company. Plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of financing automobile and other contracts for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Van Allen v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Liver v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Hegler v. EddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Benedict v. Greer-Robbins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
3Cited by12 opinions
- Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Cook and Sons Equipment, Inc. v. Morris KillenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Lindsey v. ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Miller v. Modern Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Redd v. Garford Motor Truck Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.