Legal Opinion

San Francisco Savings Union v. E. B. Long

California Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1898No. S. F. 1041PublishedCited by 25 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Dorn & Dorn, for E. B. Long, S. M. Gower et al., Appellants. Charles S. Peery, for Home Benefit Life Association, Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This is an action of interpleader brought by the plaintiff, a savings bank, to have sundry claimants to a deposit in the bank litigate among themselves and have determined, to whom the money should be paid. In such cases there may always be a twofold contest: First, as to the right of the plaintiff" to bring the suit and to force the defendants to interplead; and,, if such right is maintained, the litigation among the defendants-There may be two sets of pleadings: first, those having reference-only to the right of the plaintiff to compel the defendants to interplead, and the several…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Winchester v. MaburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Kruger v. Life & Annuity Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, Secretary of the InteriorSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. AldenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. DIAL 800 v. FesbinderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Pacific Paving Co. v. VizelichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Conner v. Bank of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

20 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