bill of interpleader

The peculiarity of the strict bill of interpleader was that the plaintiff asserted no interest in the debt or fund, the amount of which he placed at the disposal of the court and asked that the rival claimants be required to settle in the equity suit the ownership of the claim among themselves.

One in which the person exhibiting it claims no right In opposition to the rights claimed by the person against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons, for the safety of the person exhibiting the bill. 24 Barl}. (N. Y.) 154; 19 Ga. 513. A bill exhibited by one who, not knowing to whom he ought of right to render a debt or duty, fears he may be hurt by some of the claimants, and therefore prays he rnay interplead, so that the court may judge to whom the thing belongs, and he is thereby safe on the payment. 2 Paige,

One in which the person exhibiting it claims no right in opposition to the rights claimed by the persons against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons, for the safety of the person exhibiting the bill. Cooper, Eq. Plead. 43; Mitf. Eq. PI. 32; Winfield v. Bacon, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 154; Adams v. Dixon, 19 Ga. 513, 65 Am. Dec. 60S. An interpleader is a proceeding in equity for the relief of a party against whom there are, at law, separate and conflicting claims, whether in suit or not, for the same debt, duty, or thing, and where a recovery by one of the claimants will not, at law, protect the party against a recovery for the same debt or duty by the other claimant. It is out of this latter circumstance that the equity to relief arises; per Bates, Ch., Hastings v. Cropper, 3 Del. Ch. 165; Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 209; and where the facts present a proper case for an interpleader, equity will not entertain a bill simply to restrain one of the parties claiming the fund in controversy from prosecuting his claims until the other party has failed to establish his claim; Hastings v. Cropper, 3 Del. Ch. 165; but leave will be granted to amend by making it a bill of interpleader by adding proper parties, bringing the fund into court, and riling the affidavit denying collusion; id. A bill exhibited by a third person, who, not knowing to whom he ought of right to render a debt or duty or pay his rent, fears he may be hurt by some of the claimants, and therefore prays that they may interplead, so that the court may judge to whom the thing belongs, and he be thereby safe on the payment; Pract. Reg. 78; Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 199; City Bank v. Bangs, id. 570; Cameron v. The Marcellus, 48 N. C. S3; Hall v. Craig, 125 Ind. 523, 25 N. E. 538; Glaser v. Priest, 29 Mo. App. 1. A bill of the former character may, in general, be brought by one who has in his lay claim; Strange v. Bell, 11 Ga. 103; Consociated Presbyterian Soc. of Green's Farm v. Staples, 23 Conn. 544; Herndon v. 1 1 15 Ark. 389; Freeland v. Wilson, 1^ 380; Heusner v. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. App. Such a bill must contain the plain statement of his rights, negativing any interest in the thing in controversy; 3 Story, Eq. Jur. § 821; but showing a clear title to maintain the bill; 3 Madd. 277; and also the claims of the opposing parties; Mohawk 6 II. It. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 7 Hare 57; Robards v. Clayton, 49 Mo. App. 60S; that the adverse title of the claimants is derived from a common source is sufficient; Crane v. Mc Donald, 118 N. Y. 648, 23 N. E. 991; must have annexed to it the affidavit of the plaintiff that there is no collusion between him and either of the parties; Farley v. Blood, 30 N. II. 354; must contain an offer to bring money into court if any is due, the bill being demurrable, if there is failure, unless it is offered or else actually produced; Mitf. Eq. PL 49; Barton, Suit in Eq. -17, n. 1; must show that there are persons in being capable of interpleading and setting up opposing claims; 18 Ves. Ch..')TT; it is also demurrable if upon its face it shows that one of the defendants has no claim to the debt due from the complainant; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Miller, 61 Fed. 401. These proceedings should not be brought except when there is no other way for one to protect himself, and in order to maintain the action, it is necessary to show that the plaintiff has not acted in a partisan m as between the claimants; Hinckley v. 1'iister, 83 Wis. 64, 53 N. W. 21. It should pray that the defendants set forth their several titles, and interplead, settle, and adjust their demands between themselves. It also generally prays an injunction to restrain the proceedings of the claimants, or either of them, at law; and in this case the bill should offer to bring the money into court; and the court will not, in general, act upon this part of the prayer unless the money be actually brought into court; Mohawk & H. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, Ch. (X. Y.) 3S4; Richards v. Salter, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 445. In the absence of statutes, such a bill does not ordinarily lie, except where there is privity of some sort between all the parties, and where the claim by all is of the same nature and character; 3 Beav. 579; Story, Eq. Jur. § S07; Lincoln v. R. Co., 24 Vt. 63$; White Water Valley Canal Co. v. Comegys, 2 Ind. 469. The granting of an order of interpleader is within the judicial discretion; Taylor v. Satterthwalte, 2 Misc. 441, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1ST. The decree for interpleader may be obtained after a bearing in the usual manner; 4 Bro. Ch. 297; City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige. defendants do not deny the statements of the bill-; 16 Ves. Ch. 203; Story, Eq. PI. § 297 a. A bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader will lie in many cases by a party in interest to ascertain aud establish his own rights, where there are other conflicting rights between third persons; Story, Eq. PI. § 297 6; Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 199; Cameron v. The Marcellus, 48 N. C. 83. In a bill of interpleader the complainant being indifferent between the parties, the duty of his solicitor is ended as such, when the bill is bled, and he has no interest in the decree except that the bill shall be adjudged to be properly tiled. The solicitor may then appear for one of the parties, but only by leave of the court, which will be granted only upon consideration of the special circumstances of the facts of the case and the conclusion that the case is a proper one for granting the leave; Morrow v. Robinson, 4 Del. Ch. 534, note; Webster v. Mc Daniel, 2 id. 297; and see Houghton v. Kendall, 7 Allen (Mass.) 72. See Interpleader. A bill of interpleader is said in 22 Harv. L. R. 294, to lie on behalf of one who is in the position of an innocent stakeholder who is ready to do his duty, in order to free him from subjection to two suits and the possibility of a double liability. The requisites of the suit are, roughly speaking, ten in number: 1. The adverse claims must be mutually exclusive; National Ins. Co. v. Pingrey, 141 Mass. 411, 6 N. E. 93; Bassett v. Leslie, 123 N. Y. 396, 25 N. E. 386. It would be manifestly unjust to make the claimants fight each other when the validity of one claim is not dependent upon the invalidity of the other; there can then be no dispute between the claimants. For this reason, if one of the claimants gets a verdict or judgment the bill no longer lies; see Maxwell v. Leichtman, 72 N. J. Eq. 780, 65 Atl. 1007. 2. The complainant must be willing to bring into court or surrender all that is claimed by either defendant; M. & H. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 384. If he has a counterclaim against either claimant he cannot have it determined in such a proceeding. 3. The position of the stakeholder must be such a precarious one that he really needs the aid of equity to prevent injustice. Thus, one who is in possession of land claiming no title need only move out. So also the bill does not lie if all the claims would be settled in one suit at law; Fitts v. Shaw, 22 R. I. 17, 46 Atl. 42; or if one of the claims is clearly invalid; M. & H. R. Co. v. Clute, supra; or both are illegal; Applegarth v. Colley, 2 Dowl. N. S. 223. 4. There must be no collusion between the complainant and either claimant; Murietta v. So. Amer. Co., 62 L.

The name of aHsill in equity to obtain a settlement of a question of right to money or other property adversely claimed, in which the party filing the bill has no interest, although it may be in his hands, by compelling such adverse claimants to litigate the right or title between themselves, and relieve him from liability or litigation. Van Winkle v. Owen. 54 N. J. Eq. 253, 34 Atl. 400; Wakeman v. Kingsland, 46 N. J. Eq. 113, 18 Atl. 680 ; Gibson v. Gold-thwaite, 7 Ala. 281, 42 Am. Dee, 592.

Defined under Bill in Black's Law Dictionary.

chancery practice. A bill of interpleader, is one in which the person exhibiting it claims no right in opposition to the rights claimed by the person against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons, for the safety of the person exhibiting the bill. Hinde, 20; Coop. Eq. Pl. 43; Mitf. Pl. 32. A bill of interpleader may be filed, though the party has not been sued at law, or has been sued by one only of the conflicting claimants, or though the claim of one of the defendants is actionable at law, and the other in equity. 6 Johns. Chan. R. 445.