Dunsmoor

Dunsmoor v. Furstenfeldt

Good Law
12 L.R.A. 508·1891 Cal. LEXIS 727·88 Cal. 522·26 P. 518
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 1, 1891No. 13917California2,050 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

The plaintiff (clerk of the superior court) brought this action to compel the defendants, Furstenfeldt and Geinger, to interplead as to their respective adverse claims to be paid a sum of money in the possession and custody of the plaintiff, which he was willing and ready to pay to the one to whom the court should determine it was due.

The court adjudged that Furstenfeldt was entitled to the money, and Geinger brings this appeal from the judgment upon the judgment roll, and contends that upon the facts found the judgment should have been in his favor.

The material facts found are substantially as follows: 1. In January, 1888, Peter Eschelbach made an assignment of his property to one Lewis, for the benefit of his creditors; 2. Thereafter, Sichler, one of the creditors of the insolvent, brought an action in the superior court of Los Angeles County against Lewis, the assignee, to compel him to account to the creditors; 3. In this action against the assignee he was ordered by the court, April 11,1889, to deposit with the clerk thereof, Dunsmoor, plaintiff herein, about $8,000, to be held pending the litigation as to the proper distribution thereof among the creditors, and thereupon…

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.