American Co. v. Wheeler

• Decision Date: 31 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 240.,240.
• Parties: AMERICAN CO. OF ARKANSAS v. WHEELER et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

26 S.W.2d 115

AMERICAN CO. OF ARKANSAS v. WHEELER et al.

No. 240.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 31, 1930.

Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court; J. Y. Stevens, Chancellor.

Suit by the City of New York Insurance Company and the Rhode Island Insurance Company against the American Company of Arkansas, C. B. Wheeler, and others. From a decree that defendant last named was entitled to money which plaintiffs had deposited in the registry of the court, defendant first named appeals.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.

On June 14, 1929, City of New York Insurance Company and Rhode Island Insurance Company brought suit in equity against certain defendants, and each company asked to deposit the sum of $618.75 in the registry of the court to be distributed to the defendants who might be held to be entitled to receive the same, and asked that they be released from liability by reason of two policies of fire insurance issued to W. F. Conine and C. B. Wheeler. They also prayed that the defendants be restrained from proceeding any further on certain garnishments issued against them by the defendants. It was alleged and proved that on December 19, 1928, the fire insurance companies each issued its policy of fire insurance to the defendants W. F. Conine and C. B. Wheeler, in the sum of $1,000, $150 of which was on a store building and the remaining $850 on the furniture and fixtures situated therein. On January 1, 1929, the insured property was destroyed by fire, and the liability of the insurers on the policies was fixed between the parties at the sum of $1,237.50 on both policies.

C. B. Wheeler filed an answer in which he claimed that he owned the furniture and fixtures, and that the parties settled on the basis that the sum of $1,237.50 should be paid as the amount of insurance due on the furniture and fixtures. Wherefore, he prayed an order of the court directing that this amount be paid to him.

The American Company of Arkansas filed an answer alleging that it had had garnishments issued and served on the plaintiffs upon a judgment in its favor in the circuit court against W. F. Conine in the sum of $634.96. It was also alleged and proved by it that on the 7th day of May, 1929, judgment in the circuit court was rendered in favor of the American Company of Arkansas against plaintiffs in the sum of $697.15. Of this amount, judgment was rendered in its favor against the Rhode Island Insurance Company in the sum of $618.75 and in its favor against the City of New York Insurance Company in the sum $79.40. The judgment recites that the judgment in the garnishment proceedings was rendered upon the writ of garnishment issued, the answer to the garnishees, and the other evidence in the cause.

Subsequently, the American Company of Arkansas filed an amendment to its answer in which it alleged that the conveyance by W. F. Conine to C. B. Wheeler of the furniture and fixtures insured by the insurance companies was in fraud of its rights as a creditor of W. F. Conine. The evidence on this branch of the case will be stated and discussed in the opinion.

The chancellor found the issues in favor of Wheeler, and it was decreed that he was the owner of the insured property and was entitled to have the sum of $1,237.50, which had been deposited in the registry of the court by the insurance companies, paid over to him, less certain small amounts which were directed to be paid to other parties not involved in this appeal. The American Company of Arkansas has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Saxon, Wade & Warren, of Camden, for appellant.

McMillen & Scott and Carmichael & Hendricks, all of Little Rock, for appellees.

HART, C. J. (after stating the facts).

Counsel for the insurance companies claim that they were entitled to file a suit in the nature of a bill of interpleader in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits between the conflicting claimants to the fund agreed to be paid by the insurance companies on the fire insurance policies in question. They rely on the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Moore, 92 Ark. 446, 123 S. W. 233, where it was held that a bill in the nature of interpleader is one in which the complainant seeks certain relief of an equitable nature concerning the fund in dispute in addition to the interpleader of conflicting claimants. In that case it was, also, held that, where a creditor sued in a court of one county and subsequently was made a party to a bill of interpleader in the court of another county, and restrained from proceeding further in the former suit, he should have appealed in the latter court and set up all his rights there, and cannot litigate his claim in the former court. That case is determinative of the right of the insurance companies to file a suit in the nature of a bill of interpleader, but it is not conclusive of the rights of the parties under such a suit.

The chancery court having jurisdiction in the suit in the nature of a bill of interpleader, according to the usual practice, could restrain the several parties to the suit from proceeding in other courts to have the same matters adjudicated; but it by no means follows that one of the defendants could be divested of rights which he had already acquired by judgment in another court of competent jurisdiction. Such a doctrine would entirely destroy the conclusive character of judgments between parties and privies as to the matters which were the subject of litigation. It is a rule of universal application that a question of law in issue in a former suit, and which was there judicially determined, is conclusively settled...