Moss

Moss v. Bowman

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 720·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 415·3 P.2d 377
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 1931Docket No. 870.California2,045 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Marks, J.

This is an action brought for the recovery of the possession of a Pierce Arrow automobile. The respondent had judgment in the court below and plaintiff has taken this appeal.

Prior to August 1, 1929, Max Jacobs was transacting the business of lending money to finance the sale and purchase of automobiles under the fictitious name of the Universal Finance Company. After the controversy here involved had arisen and before suit was filed he died and Moe Jacobs was appointed and qualified as executor of his estate. During the pendency of this appeal Moe Jacobs died and Oscar Moss was appointed and qualified as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Max Jacobs, deceased, and has been substituted in the place of Moe Jacobs as the plaintiff and appellant herein.

The Sammis-McBrien Company, a partnership, were agents for the sale of Pierce Arrow automobiles in the city of San Diego. The partnership maintained a show and sales room in that city. When an automobile was sold upon credit, it was its custom to execute a conditional sales contract with the purchaser providing for deferred payments at stated intervals, and to assign these contracts to the Universal Finance…

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.