Escrow Cases
← Back to search
Court record Court of Appeal opinion

Blackburn v. McCoy — California Court of Appeal

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One · 1 Cal.App.2d 648

Open source record

AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsTeaches foundational limited-agency escrow law — holders follow written instructions only, a rule Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust and St. Paul Title v. Meier later apply to disclosure duties.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question

Teaches foundational limited-agency escrow law — holders follow written instructions only, a rule Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust and St. Paul Title v. Meier later apply to disclosure duties.

Limit before takeaway

Published appellate opinion only. Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160 (supporting link) cites Blackburn for no duty beyond escrow instructions.

Case number
1 Cal.App.2d 648
Filed
January 1, 1935
Source record
Court opinion
Procedural posture
Court of Appeal opinion
Money movement stage
Seller proceeds stage
Record gap
Payee gap
Strongest reviewed source
Published opinion
Allegation / finding status
Court ruling
Disposition
Court of Appeal opinion
Last posture checked
2026-05-31
Reviewed
2026-05-31

What happened

Court held an escrow holder owes each party only the duties stated in that party's instructions and has no duty to disclose the seller's simultaneous purchase and resale markup when the buyer's instructions did not ask for that information.

What it hinged on

Seller Proceeds. Teaches foundational limited-agency escrow law — holders follow written instructions only, a rule Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust and St. Paul Title v. Meier later apply to disclosure duties.

Amount involved

Amount not stated in reviewed source.

Result

Court of Appeal opinion

Why this belongs here

Teaches foundational limited-agency escrow law — holders follow written instructions only, a rule Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust and St. Paul Title v. Meier later apply to disclosure duties.

Documents to inspect

This list is inferred from the topic pattern, not asserted as an extracted document list for this case.

What the file needed to show

Current reviewed metadata frames the file issue this way:

Teaches foundational limited-agency escrow law — holders follow written instructions only, a rule Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust and St. Paul Title v. Meier later apply to disclosure duties.

Timeline

FiledJanuary 1, 1935
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31

Topics

Seller Proceeds

Related patterns

Related records are selected from shared topics, hinge category, court type, and posture. They are discovery aids, not claims that the facts or results match.

Continue research

Open a related reviewed-record search or save this trail when the file-record question is worth revisiting.

Open related search Saved research

Source record

Court opinionSupporting source

What this record does not show

This reviewed record does not show a court finding that any company or person did anything wrong unless the linked source expressly says so. Read the primary source for allegations, posture, and outcome.

Limit: Published appellate opinion only. Lee v. Title Insurance & Trust (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 160 (supporting link) cites Blackburn for no duty beyond escrow instructions.

Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.