Legal Opinion

Russakov v. the McCarthy Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1929No. Docket Nos. L.A. 9856, 9876PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

The above-entitled actions, consolidated for purposes of trial and appeal, were instituted to have declared and enforced a trust in certain moneys awarded to the defendant McCarthy Company by the defendant City of Los Angeles in satisfaction of judgment entered in a certain condemnation proceeding. The defendant city has no interest or concern in the outcome of this litigation other than that of a stakeholder, the award money being in its possession at the commencement of suit. Any claim that the respective plaintiffs may have in and to the disputed fund arises out of and is founded upon…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Chandler v. MoreyIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Price v. EngelkingAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
  3. Security Co. v. RiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. McDaniels v. DickeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Newman v. BaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1942

6 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