Diggs

Diggs v. Arnold Bros., Inc.

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 518·23 P.2d 71
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 1933Docket No. 4792.California2,616 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pullen, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court sitting without a jury by which plaintiff was awarded damages for $3,000 against defendant, for the malicious prosecution of plaintiff upon a charge of grand theft.

For several years prior to the time here involved plaintiff had been engaged in farming and fruit-raising and was also a dealer in motor cars operating under a contract with the Hudson Motor Car Company in and adjacent to the city of Marysville. This district lay within the territory of Arnold Brothers, Inc., which was the distributor in Northern California of the products of the Hudson Motor Car Company. Under the agreement between the parties Diggs was obligated to purchase for his trade, new Hudson-Essex cars through this distributing agency.

In the month of March, 1930, an automobile show was being held in Marysville, and in order to stimulate the sales of their particular cars in that territory, Arnold Brothers, Inc., participated therein, and placed in their exhibit a certain car known as a Sun sedan. At the conclusion of the show the car was left with the Diggs agency to sell, and in a few days thereafter the car was sold through the branch agency of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.