Garbutt

Garbutt v. Chappe

Good Law
131 Cal. App. 284·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 757·21 P.2d 594
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 1933Docket No. 8621.California3,327 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Parker, J.

The actions above entitled, arising out of the same transaction, and involving the same issues, practically between the same parties, were consolidated for trial in the court below and the record on appeal is a single transcript and bill of exceptions jointly prepared and settled. The controversy centers about a sum of money withheld by the City of Oakland upon a stop-payment notice, which money would otherwise be payable pursuant to the terms of a public improvement contract.

Inasmuch as the caption indicates different appellants and respondents, it may serve to clarify the discussion if we detail the situation at least to the extent, preliminarily, of identifying the real parties in interest here. We may note, at the outset, that there is no issue presented as to the validity of the proceedings up to and including the letting of the contract; nor is there any point made as to full performance in so far as the City of Oakland is interested. The position of the City of Oakland is analogous to that of a stakeholder. It concedes that the money is due someone and has little, if any, interest in the outcome. Chappe and Curren were partners doing business under the name of Oakland…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.