Legal Opinion

Haulman v. Crumal

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 30, 1936No. Civ. 1325PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

action in interpleader was instituted in the superior court by plaintiffs whose complaint alleged that they held a specified sum of money which was claimed by each of the defendants named in the action, that plain tiffs were unable to determine which defendant was entitled to receive the money as to which plaintiffs denied that they had any claim and alleged their willingness and ability to pay the same to the party entitled thereto and therefore prayed that the court enter an interlocutory decree requiring the defendants to interplead and set forth their respective claims to said sum of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hoxie v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Gault v. WiensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  3. Hanberg v. National BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Whitney v. DayOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Nordyke v. Charlton & StalkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Puissegur v. YarbroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Phoenix v. KovacevichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Walsh v. Alpha Financial Group (In Re Rice)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  4. Jubelt v. SketersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Hecht v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

2 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