5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1912–1968 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Francegreen2 sentences1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 | 1 | 1 |
American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc.green2 sentences1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. California Institute of Technologygreen2 sentences1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 | 1 | 1 |
Sivers v. Siversgreen2 sentences1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 | 1 | 1 |
Buckner v. A. Leon & Co.green2 sentences1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 1968Seetion 1044: “Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this article. ’ ’ The only property the article provides cannot be transferred is “A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest. ’ ’ (§ 1045.) Section 1458: “A right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. ’ ’ Thus in American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 393, 397 [ 282 P.2d 504 , 49 A.L.R.2d 1344 ], the contract was silent as to the place of payment for property purchased; in Crawford v. France (1933) 219 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1941In Bohlen’s Studies in the Law of Torts at page 116, the author says: ‘It seems quite clearly established that where the purchaser, actually knowing the defective nature of the article, puts it to a use for which it is unfit and unsafe, any injury received therefrom is due to his misuse and not to the act of him who created the defect.’ The qualification of the general rule was recognized in Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co., 6 Cal. (2d) 688, 689, 694 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 100 ], where Mr. Justice Shenk, speaking for the court, said: ‘Furthermore the pertinent principles hereinbefore referred to are predic 1940In Bohlen’s Studies in the Law of Torts at page 116, the author says: “It seems quite clearly established that where the purchaser, actually knowing the defective nature of the article, puts it to a use for which it is unfit and unsafe, any injury received therefrom is due to his misuse and not to the act of him who created the defect.” The qualification of the general rule was recognized in Stultz v. Benson Lumber Co., 6 Cal. (2d) 688, 689, 694 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 100 ], where Mr. Justice Shenk, speaking for the court, said: “Furthermore the pertinent principles hereinbefore referred to are predic | 2 | 1940–1941 |
Gutelius v. General Electric Co.
neutral
1 sentence1941It is not necessary for the supplier to inform those for whose use the chattel is supplied of a condition which a mere casual looking over will disclose unless the circumstances under which the chattel is supplied are such as to make it likely that even so casual an inspection will not be made.” The qualification of the general rule of liability found in the passage quoted from Corpus Juris is well stated in Gutelius v. General Electric Co., 37 Cal. App. (2d) 455, 458 [ 99 Pac. (2d) 682 ], from which we quote: “But the rule holding the manufacturer liable for negligence in construction is subj | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer
neutral
2 sentences1941Jur., p. 892, sec. 331, and cases cited.)’ ” The authority most frequently cited to the point, because the opinion covers the rule in its various phases, is Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616 [ 140 S. W. 1047 , Ann. 1941Jur., p. 892, sec. 331, and cases cited.)’ ” The authority most frequently cited to the point, because the opinion covers the rule in its various phases, is Olds Motor Works v. Shaffer, 145 Ky. 616 [ 140 S. W. 1047 , Ann. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Wait v. Kern River Mining, Milling, & Developing Co.
green
2 sentences1940Inexpediency, on the other hand, *440 may be based upon comity, legal restrictions, lack of equity on the part of the complainant or lack of power in the court to render or enforce an equitable decree for want of jurisdiction of property or parties, and unless some such basis is apparent, the court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction which it admittedly has. ’ ’ In 12 Ruling Case Law, page 33, section 22, the qualification of the general rule is thus expressed: “Irrespective of the question as to the proper test to be applied in determining what are the internal affairs of a corporatio 1940Inexpediency, on the other hand, *440 may be based upon comity, legal restrictions, lack of equity on the part of the complainant or lack of power in the court to render or enforce an equitable decree for want of jurisdiction of property or parties, and unless some such basis is apparent, the court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction which it admittedly has. ’ ’ In 12 Ruling Case Law, page 33, section 22, the qualification of the general rule is thus expressed: “Irrespective of the question as to the proper test to be applied in determining what are the internal affairs of a corporatio | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Helling v. Schindler
green
2 sentences1912That the Towne case presents an exception to the general rule is pointed out by the supreme court in Fogarty v. Southern Pacific Co., 151 Cal. 794 , [ 91 Pac. 652 ], wherein the court, through Mr. Justice Angellotti, says: “This rule [the rule in the Towne case] is a qualification of the general rule relative to the duty of the employer to furnish an appliance that is reasonably safe, and to use reasonable care to keep the same in proper repair, and as stated in Helling v. Schindler, 145 Cal. 303 , [ 78 Pac. 710 ], it relates only to such slight defects attendant upon the operation of machiner 1912That the Towne case presents an exception to the general rule is pointed out by the supreme court in Fogarty v. Southern Pacific Co., 151 Cal. 794 , [ 91 Pac. 652 ], wherein the court, through Mr. Justice Angellotti, says: “This rule [the rule in the Towne case] is a qualification of the general rule relative to the duty of the employer to furnish an appliance that is reasonably safe, and to use reasonable care to keep the same in proper repair, and as stated in Helling v. Schindler, 145 Cal. 303 , [ 78 Pac. 710 ], it relates only to such slight defects attendant upon the operation of machiner | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.