Legal Opinion

Nanny v. H. E. Pogue Distillery Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 27, 1943No. Civ. 13872PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in a proceeding under section 689 of the Code of Civil Procedure determining that respondent, City National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, is the owner of the sum of $8100 now in the possession and custody of the Marshal of the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles.

The factual background of the instant litigation is briefly as follows:

On October 27, 1941, Sawelson Wholesale Company, a co-partnership composed of Samuel Sawelson and others, doing a wholesale liquor business in the city of Los Angeles, ordered from defendant Pogue Distillery…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Estate of CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. People v. MirandaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Sunset Realty Co. v. DadmunCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Kirk v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dorn v. PichininoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Turner v. DonovanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Bales v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. Michael v. BurgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API