Pike v. Rhinehart
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtDrapeau, J.
Back in 1945 plaintiff, Mrs. Dulcie Pike, owned a Ford automobile. Defendant, Patricia Rhinehart, owned a Buick. Mrs. Pike lived in Los Angeles; Mrs. Rhine-hart lived in San Francisco.
While Mrs. Rhinehart, her husband, and her son were visiting in Los Angeles the Buick was wrecked. It was in a garage to be repaired, but was not in shape to be driven. The Rhineharts needed immediate transportation to get home to San Francisco. So they traded their Buick for Mrs. Pike’s Ford, and in a day or two they went home. In a short time the Buick was repaired and delivered to Mrs. Pike.
Now, let’s go on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Parke v. FranciscusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. WeeksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Pike v. RhinehartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
3Cited by8 opinions
- Singleton v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. LefeverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Calhoun v. Huntington Park First Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. LILES BROS. MOTOR CO., INC.California Court of Appeal · 1959
- Ruby v. WellingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.