J. W. Cox Motor Sales Co. v. Goodcell

S.D. California

J. W. Cox Motor Sales Co. v. Goodcell

5 F. Supp. 630, 13 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 172, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1084, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9493

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedJuly 22, 1933

DocketNo. 4374

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Supp. 630 (J. W. Cox Motor Sales Co. v. Goodcell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. W. Cox Motor Sales Co. v. Goodcell, 5 F. Supp. 630, 13 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 172, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1084, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9493 (S.D. Cal. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

COSGRAYE, District Judge.

It does not seem to me that Klepper v. Carter (C. C. A.) 286 F. 370; can be considered authority here. In the Klepper Case part of the truck was purchased from one manufacturer and the bodies from another. Klepper caused a truck to exist where none existed before and was a dealer in trucks. Here the plaintiff was an automobile dealer, and at the request of individual purchasers made changes in the automobile. It was at no time used as a truck; that is, for the carriage of freight or merchandise as distinguished from the transportation of passengers. Its use after as before the change was to transport persons with some inconsequential tools. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff cannot be held to be a manufacturer and should have judgment.

Plaintiff will prepare and submit findings in accordance with this memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COSGRAYE, District Judge.

It does not seem to me that Klepper v. Carter (C. C. A.) 286 F. 370; can be considered authority here. In the Klepper Case part of the truck was purchased from one manufacturer and the bodies from another. Klepper caused a truck to exist where none existed before and was a dealer in trucks. Here the plaintiff was an automobile dealer, and at the request of individual purchasers made changes in the automobile. It was at no time used as a truck; that is, for the carriage of freight or merchandise as distinguished from the transportation of passengers. Its use after as before the change was to transport persons with some inconsequential tools. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff cannot be held to be a manufacturer and should have judgment.

Plaintiff will prepare and submit findings in accordance with this memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Supp. 630, 13 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 172, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1084, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-w-cox-motor-sales-co-v-goodcell-casd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack