Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 6 · Court of Appeal opinion · January 1, 2007
Related by Seller Proceeds + Disbursement Authorization · Seller ProceedsCourt record Court of Appeal opinion
Gallagher v. California Pac. Title — California Court of Appeal
California Court of Appeal · 13 Cal.App.2d 482
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultCourt of Appeal opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsApplies the Jones v. Title Guaranty measure-of-damages rule to a 1930s title-company escrow — foundational for quantifying seller and depositor losses after unauthorized disbursement.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Applies the Jones v. Title Guaranty measure-of-damages rule to a 1930s title-company escrow — foundational for quantifying seller and depositor losses after unauthorized disbursement.
Limit before takeaway
Published Court of Appeal opinion only. Jones v. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. (1918) 178 Cal. 375 (supporting link) states the conditional-deposit damages rule.
- Court / region
- Cal. Ct. App.
- Case number
- 13 Cal.App.2d 482
- Filed
- January 1, 1936
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Court of Appeal opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Release-decision 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 that disburses funds without satisfying written deposit conditions is liable for damages measured by the loss the depositor suffered from the unauthorized release, applying the same conditional-deposit framework as Jones v. Title Guaranty.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Applies the Jones v. Title Guaranty measure-of-damages rule to a 1930s title-company escrow — foundational for quantifying seller and depositor losses after unauthorized disbursement.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Court of Appeal opinion
Why this belongs here
Applies the Jones v. Title Guaranty measure-of-damages rule to a 1930s title-company escrow — foundational for quantifying seller and depositor losses after unauthorized disbursement.
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:
Applies the Jones v. Title Guaranty measure-of-damages rule to a 1930s title-company escrow — foundational for quantifying seller and depositor losses after unauthorized disbursement.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1936
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 Court of Appeal opinion only. Jones v. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. (1918) 178 Cal. 375 (supporting link) states the conditional-deposit damages rule.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.