Legal Opinion

Canfield v. Security-First National Bank

California Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1939No. L. A. 16085; L. A. 16083; L. A. 16086PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

These three actions were brought by plaintiffs as judgment creditors of respondent Charles 0. Can-field against Canfield and the respondent Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles. The actions are in the nature of creditors’ bills, brought under section 859 of the Civil Code. By them plaintiffs-appellants seek to reach the claimed beneficial interest of respondent Canfield in a discretionary spendthrift trust created by Charles A. Canfield, which trust is being administered by the respondent Security Bank as trustee. The three cases were consolidated for trial, were disposed of below by a…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Metcalf v. BarkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Cutting v. . CuttingNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  4. Security-First National Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Crew v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. De Burgh v. De BurghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Erlich v. Municipal Court of Beverly Hills Judicial DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Estate of StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Kirkwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Howard v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API