Ostly v. Saper

ASHBURN, J.

Certain money which was paid into superior court in an interpleader proceeding was deposited by the clerk in the county treasury. While there it earned substantial interest. The question is whether that interest belongs to the persons ultimately held to be owners of the principal amount or to the county of Los Angeles. The county’s claim having been rejected, its clerk, treasurer and auditor appeal. The deposit was made pursuant to section 573, Code of Civil Procedure, which says: “Whenever money is paid into or deposited in the court, the same must be delivered to the clerk . . . [who] must, unless otherwise directed by law, deposit such money with the county treasurer, to be held by him subject to the order of the court.”

Appellants’ claim is that the treasurer rightly commingled these funds with others deposited with him, they became county moneys, and no interest earned thereon may be recovered by anyone except under statutory authority; that existing statutes are not broad enough to cover deposits made by individuals, being limited to “local agencies” as defined in section 53630 Government Code, i.e., county, city, municipality or other public or municipal corporation. As stated in

Metropolitan Water Dist.

v.

Adams,

32 Cal.2d 620, at page 631 [197 P.2d 543], appellants’ “interpretation of the statute in issue results in a windfall to the county, substantially undeserved and unearned.”

The ruling herein is governed by that case. Metropolitan Water District had made deposits in condemnation actions as security upon orders for immediate possession. The funds were turned over to the county treasurer, commingled, then deposited in various banks where they earned interest. In due course the moneys were drawn down and paid to the landowners. But the county refused to pay to the water district the earnings which had accrued upon the funds while on deposit. A motion to compel such payment was made and

[673]

granted. In rejecting the contention that a separate suit was necessary the court said, at page 622: “We have concluded that moneys deposited with the court as in the nature of security or a