Continental National Bank v. Stoltz

is an action in interpleader, brought by plaintiff to determine the title to the sum of $2,080, which plaintiff claims to hold in escrow. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant and cross-complainant W. A. Reed. Defendant Corporate Finance Company, a corporation, appeals, and the appeal is presented on the judgment-roll.

The action was originally commenced against the defendants E. P. Stoltz, Continental Producing Company, a corporation, Robert Goldstein, and S. Goldstein, to require them to interplead and litigate among themselves as to the ownership of said $2,080. Afterward W. A. Reed, a judgment creditor of the defendant Stoltz, caused a writ of garnishment to be levied on said fund, and thereupon plaintiff filed an amended complaint in interpleader, for the purpose of bringing in as parties defendant said judgment creditor Reed and appellant Corporate Finance Company, the latter claiming to be the assignee of Stoltz. All of the defendants answered the amended complaint. The defendant Reed, besides answering, filed a cross-complaint, in which he alleged that the assignment from Stoltz to the Corporate Finance Company was a fraud. Defendants Stoltz and Corporate Finance Company answered the cross-complaint by denying the fraud. The other defendants, viz., Continental Producing Company, Robert Goldstein, and S. Gold-stein, defaulted. The defendants Continental Producing Company, Robert Goldstein, and S. Goldstein finally filed a disclaimer, in which it was alleged that they had made a settlement with Stoltz and the Corporate Finance Company,

The judgment decreed that plaintiff held said sum of six hundred dollars in escrow, and that it was the property of B. P. Stoltz. It further decreed that the assignment of said fund from Stoltz to the Corporate Finance Company was a fraud upon and void as against the cross-complainant Reed and that Reed was entitled to satisfy his judgment, which amounted to $492 with costs and interest, out of said escrow fund of six hundred dollars.

Appellant first contends that plaintiff cannot maintain this action as an interpleader, for the reason that the money involved in the action does not constitute an escrow fund, but that it belonged to the defendant E. P. Stoltz, as a depositor in said bank, and that said deposit was afterward assigned by Stoltz to appellant.

This contention is without merit. [1] A copy of the escrow instructions under which the money was received and held by plaintiff is attached as an exhibit to the amended complaint. Said instructions were signed by the defendant Continental Producing Company, a corporation, and were delivered to plaintiff by said corporation and the defendant Stoltz, together with the stock certificate book of said corporation. According to said instructions, it was the duty of plaintiff to issue said stock to purchasers and to receive the money therefor, five per cent of which was to be deducted and paid to “E. P. Stoltz or order, the fiscal agent of said corporation,” and the remaining ninety-five per cent to be held in escrow by plaintiff until that sum reached seventy-five thousand dollars, at which time said sum was to be delivered to said corporation, provided it reached that amount on or before September 1, 1916, and in the event that said sum did not reach the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars on September 1,

The amended complaint contains certain allegations, which the court found to be true, as follows: That prior to August 30, 1916, the proceeds from the sale of said stock reached the sum of thirty-four thousand four hundred dollars, of which five per cent was paid to the defendant Stoltz; that “shortly prior to said thirtieth day of August, 1916,” said corporation notified plaintiff that its contract with said Stoltz had been abrogated and annulled, and demanded that plaintiff pay no more money to said Stoltz; that “on or about said thirtieth day of August, 1916,” the defendants Robert Goldstein and S. Goldstein purchased stock aggregating $43,680, and paid plaintiff the purchase price therefor; that under the terms of said escrow instructions there would have been due said Stoltz the sum of $2,080, and “that said Continental Producing Company, in order to protect the said plaintiff from any loss on account of the claim of said E. P. Stoltz, left on deposit with plaintiff the said sum of $2,080, with the understanding and agreement that the said sum shall be left with plaintiff until such time as a dispute between the said Stoltz and said Continental Producing Company should be adjusted.”

The facts and circumstances above narrated presented a complete case for interpleader. (Woodmen of the World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640 , [ 65 Pac. 1105 ]; Freitas v. Freitas, 31 Cal. App. 16 , [ 159 Pac. 611 ]; Jory v. Supreme Council A. L. H., 105 Cal. 20 , [ 45 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 26 L. R. A. 733 , 38 Pac. 524 ] ; Youts v. Farmers’ etc. Nat. Bank, 31 Cal. App. 370 , [ 160 Pac. 855 ].)

There is nothing in the pleadings which indicates in the slightest way thát the position of the defendant Stoltz was at any time considered that of a depositor. All of his rights in said escrow fund were shown to have originated in the terms of said escrow instructions and were governed by them. [2] The contents of the judgment-roll discloses that neither appellant nor any of the other defendants ever made any objection, by demurrer, motion, or answer, to the trial court to the nature of the proceeding. The entire pleadings were made up, and the claims of the litigants were heard and determined, upon the theory that if Stoltz was entitled to any part of said sum of $2,080, he was entitled

The second contention made by appellant is that “the findings are insufficient, too vague and conflicting to support the judgment.” [3] In other words, it is claimed that the findings do not cover all of the issues raised by the pleadings. Appellant has taken this appeal in such form, however, as to render this point .unavailable. The appeal here is upon the judgment-roll alone. [4] The evidence is not before the court, and it is the rule that a judgment will not be reversed for want of a finding unless it appears that there was evidence or lack of evidence which required the court to make a finding in favor of appellant. (Terry v. Southwestern Bldg. Co., 43 Cal. App. 366 , [ 185 Pac. 212 ] ; Bliss v. Sneath, 119 Cal. 529 , [ 51 Pac. 848 ].) In Hertel v. Emireck, 178 Cal. 534 , [ 174 Pac. 30 ], it is said: “Besides, the issues which, as appellant claims, were not answered by findings were raised by its own affirmative allegations. The evidence not having been brought up, we must assume that the defendant offered no proof in support of these averments. The want of findings thereon is, accordingly, no ground for reversal. (Himmelman v. Henry, 84 Cal. 104 , [ 23 Pac. 1098 ] ; Winslow v. Gohransen, 88 Cal. 450 , [ 26 Pac. 504 ] ; Roberts v. Hall, 147 Cal. 434 , [ 82 Pac. 66 ] ; Coats v. Coats, 160 Cal. 671 , [ 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844 , 118 Pac. 441 ].)” Notwithstanding that appellant has doubtless forfeited this point by its form of appeal, we have, nevertheless, examined the findings, in connection with the pleadings, and we are of the opinion that the findings are sufficient in both form and substance.

The first finding is that all of the allegations of the complaint are true and are supported by evidence, excepting ■ that the escrow fund was reduced from $2,080 to $600.

The second finding, to which appellant particularly objects, is “that all of the allegations of the cross-complaint of defendant and cross-complainant, W.

The third finding is “that none of the allegations of the answers of defendant and cross-defendants E. P. Stoltz and Corporate Finance Company is true or is supported by the evidence,” and the fourth finding is “that defendants Continental Producing Co., a corporation, Robert Goldstein and S. Goldstein have filed an answer to the amended complaint in interpleader herein, disclaiming any interest in or to the moneys referred to in said complaint.”

[5] As above stated, the only issues of fact raised by the pleadings, and upon which the decision of the case turned, were the legal status of plaintiff as custodian of the fund and the charge of fraud against the defendants E. P. Stoltz and Corporate Finance Company, and since the answers of the defendants last named to the amended complaint and to the cross-complaint presented no affirmative defenses, the general findings adopted by the court were sufficient. (Chatfield v. Continental Bldg. Assn., 6 Cal. App. 665 , [ 92 Pac. 1040 ]; Johnson v. Klein, 70 Cal. 186 , [ 11 Pac.

Judgment affirmed.

Richards, J., and Waste, P. J., concurred.