Carter v. Los Angeles Nat'l. Bank
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lucien Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
Plaintiff brought suit against the Richardson-Kimball Company, garnisheed the defendant, on attachment, and afterward recovered judgment against the Richardson-Kimball Company. An execution was issued against the Richardson-Kimball Company upon which plaintiff realized a portion of his debt, but left seven hundred and seventy-seven dollars andthirty-five cents still due and unpaid.
At the time the notice of garnishment was served the defendant had in its possession certain notes due the Richardson-Kimball Company, which it held as collateral. Subsequent to the attachment, but prior to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Herrlich v. KaufmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Roberts & Co. v. LandeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by9 opinions
- Marshall v. WentzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Nordstrom v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Finch v. FinchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Clyne v. Easton, Eldrige & Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Matteson & Williamson Manufacturing Co. v. ConleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.