Steinmeyer v. Warner Cons. Corp.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation42 Cal.App.3d 515,116 Cal.Rptr. 57
Decision Date16 October 1974
PartiesDonald P. STEINMEYER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WARNER CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 33771.

Page 57

116 Cal.Rptr. 57
42 Cal.App.3d 515
Donald P. STEINMEYER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
WARNER CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Civ. 33771.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.
Oct. 16, 1974.

Page 59

[42 Cal.App.3d 517] John M. Collette, John V. Erickson, Collette & Ziegler, San Francisco, for defendants-appellants.

Edmund L. Regalia, Leslie A. Johnson, Miller, Starr & Regalia, Oakland, for plaintiffs-respondents.

CHRISTIAN, Associate Justice.

Defendants Warner Consolidated Corporation and Warner National Corporation (hereinafter 'Warner') appeal from a preliminary injunction restraining presentation of documents necessary to obtain payment under a bank letter of credit. The instrument had been procured by respondent Donald P. Steinmeyer (hereinafter 'Steinmeyer') to assure payment of sums owing upon the purchase by him, from Warner, of the entire capital stock of Tahoe Sierra Development Corporation.

Steinmeyer executed and delivered to Warner several promissory notes, one of which entitled Steinmeyer to offset 'The amount of any loss, liability or damage suffered by or in connection with the provisions of this agreement.' Steinmeyer also caused to be delivered to Warner letters of credit issued by the Bank of America to guarantee payment of the promissory notes. The letter of credit here in question called for payment by the bank upon presentation of the letter of credit, the promissory note and a statement by at least one of Warner's officers that Steinmeyer had defaulted in paying the note.

Before the letter of credit had been presented for payment, Steinmeyer notified Warner and the bank that he was exercising the offset rights provided in the note, claiming that Warner had failed to disclose several substantial liabilities of Tahoe Sierra which affected the value of the shock. Steinmeyer declared in the notice that after setting off the undisclosed liabilities he would pay Warner only $45,041 of the $252,000 which had been promised in the note.

[42 Cal.App.3d 518] Steinmeyer then sued Warner and the bank, praying for relief including injunctions against Warner from demanding payment on the letter of credit and against the bank from making payment thereon. The only preliminary relief granted by the trial court was an injunction against Warner, prohibiting presentation to the bank of one of the documents needed to authorize payment of the letter of credit.

The parties have argued at length the question whether it would be contrary to the provisions of Commercial Code section 5114 for the court to enjoin the bank from honoring the letter of credit. We do not reach that issue in the present appeal. The trial court did not enjoin payment by the bank; the preliminary injunction only enjoined Warner from presenting to the bank a statement that Steinmeyer had not performed in accordance with the terms of the promissory note. The issue on appeal is whether injunctive relief is available to Steinmeyer.

Warner contends the letter of credit should be given effect without regard to Steinmeyer's claimed right or setoff. The letter of credit calls for payment upon presentation with a statement from Warner that Steinmeyer had defaulted on the promissory note. But as between Steinmeyer and Warner the letter of credit cannot be construed in isolation from the underlying agreement and the promissory note. The letter of credit was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Reilly v. Marin Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 31, 2020
    ...of "offset," which generally means to counterbalance or compensate for something. (See Steinmeyer v. Warner Cons. Corp . (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 515, 518, 116 Cal.Rptr. 57.) Echoing the Court of Appeal, MHA asserts that payments by the state must offset costs the family itself incurs to keep a......
  • Heckmann v. Ahmanson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 14, 1985 of Disney stock and, thereby, destroying plaintiffs' equitable remedy of constructive trust. (Cf. Steinmeyer v. Warner Cons. Corp. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 515, 520, 116 Cal.Rptr. 57.) As discussed below, the trial court had sufficient evidence to believe dissipation of the profit was alre......
  • Wyle v. Bank Melli of Tehran, Iran, C-80-1131 RFP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • September 15, 1983
    ...a mandatory injunction requiring withdrawal of the demand and prohibiting any future demand. See Steinmeyer v. Warner Consolidated Corp., 42 Cal.App.3d 515, 116 Cal.Rptr. 57 (1974). 3. Appropriateness of injunctive Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law. Should an injunction not ......
  • Ground Air Transfer, Inc. v. Westates Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 11, 1990 reads an intermediate state appellate court decision as permitting an injunction. See Steinmeyer v. Warner Consolidated Corp., 42 Cal.App.3d 515, 116 Cal.Rptr. 57 (Cal.Ct.App.1974). We do not believe, however, that Steinmeyer creates what would amount to an unusual exception to the "no i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT