Bellingham Bay Boom Co. v. Brisbois

• Citation: 14 Wash. 144,46 P. 238
• Parties: BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM CO. v. BRISBOIS ET AL.
• Decision Date: 11 September 1896
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

46 P. 238

14 Wash. 144

BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM CO. v. BRISBOIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 11, 1896

On rehearing. Affirmed.

For former opinion, see 44 P. 153.

Newman & Howard and Kerr & McCord, for respondent Bellingham Bay Boom Co.

Kerr &amp McCord, for respondents Brisbois and others.

PER CURIAM.

It has been suggested that it appears uncertain from the opinion heretofore filed herein whether it was the intention of this court to reverse in whole or in part that portion of the judgment and order of the court below discharging the boom company from all liability upon the judgment in favor of Brisbois; and we are asked by counsel to grant a rehearing of the cause, and to modify or supplement the opinion now on file so that there may be no doubt as to the present status of the company. The writer of the opinion, having especially in mind the determination of the controversy between the appellants and the Citizens' Bank in regard to the ownership of the fund in court, and which was the principal and should have been the only, controversy in the case inadvertently omitted to indicate with precision the conclusion of the court as to the propriety of that part of the judgment which particularly concerns the boom company and, that being so, we deem it proper, without further argument, to so express our views on that question that they may be no longer misunderstood.

We said in our original opinion that the boom company was not entitled to be discharged from the judgment against it held by appellants, and we did so because it appeared that it had not paid the whole amount conceded to be due thereon into court. The proof shows that the respondent company, by reason of inadvertence on the part of its secretary, failed to deposit in the court the costs included in the judgment against it, and which amounted to about $21.80. It was therefore entitled to be released from its liability thereon only to the extent of the amount actually deposited, viz $900, and not entirely, as the court adjudged.

There was some controversy as to whether the plaintiff had invoked the proper remedy, but we were, and still are, of the opinion that it had a right, under the statute, to maintain an action of interpleader; and the only object of this action was to have the rights and claims of the respective defendants in and to the indebtedness of the plaintiff "adjudged, determined, and adjusted," in accordance...