Cal. · Supreme Court opinion · January 1, 1961
Related by Seller Proceeds + Disbursement Authorization · Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Security Trust Bank v. Carlsen — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 11344
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsFoundational interpleader case for escrow holders — conflicting claims to the deposit do not create independent liability that blocks the stakeholder remedy.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Foundational interpleader case for escrow holders — conflicting claims to the deposit do not create independent liability that blocks the stakeholder remedy.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497 (supporting link) applies the same stakeholder test to escrow interpleader.
- Court / region
- Cal.
- Case number
- L. A. No. 11344
- Filed
- January 1, 1928
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Supreme Court opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Release-decision gap
- Strongest reviewed source
- Published opinion
- Allegation / finding status
- Court ruling
- Disposition
- Supreme Court opinion
- Last posture checked
- 2026-05-31
- Reviewed
- 2026-05-31
What happened
Court held a bank escrow holder facing vendor, purchaser, and assignee claims remains a mere stakeholder when the court can resolve entitlement without a separate duty beyond delivering the deposit.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Foundational interpleader case for escrow holders — conflicting claims to the deposit do not create independent liability that blocks the stakeholder remedy.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Foundational interpleader case for escrow holders — conflicting claims to the deposit do not create independent liability that blocks the stakeholder remedy.
Documents to inspect
- Seller instructions
- Authorization request
- Callback log
- Wire confirmation
- Closing statement
- Escrow instructions
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:
Foundational interpleader case for escrow holders — conflicting claims to the deposit do not create independent liability that blocks the stakeholder remedy.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1928
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
Seller Proceeds·Disbursement Authorization
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.
Source record
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 Supreme Court opinion only. Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497 (supporting link) applies the same stakeholder test to escrow interpleader.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.