Boice v. Boice, 8270.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8270.,8270. |
| Citation | 135 F.2d 919 |
| Parties | BOICE v. BOICE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Charles S. Barrett, Jr., of Newark, N. J. (Lum, Fairlie & Wachenfeld, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant.
Milton M. Unger and John J. Francis, both of Newark, N. J. (Foley & Francis, and Gerald T. Foley, all of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for defendants First Nat. Bank of Palm Beach and Florida Bank & Trust Co.
Before MARIS, JONES, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.
The order of the district court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint which seeks an interpleader between the defendants must be affirmed for the reasons well stated in the opinion of Judge Fake, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 183. We think also that the dismissal was right because of an absence of diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, Edith Gibby Boice. This is not a case of strict interpleader in which the plaintiff appears as a mere stakeholder without any interest in a controversy between defendants whose diversity of citizenship satisfies the statute. Treines v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S. Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85. On the contrary this is a case of a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader in which the plaintiff has an active controversy with respect to the subject matter of the suit with one of the defendants, Mrs. Boice. Since these parties are both citizens of New Jersey the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The order is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere, Civ. A. No. 9952.
...the normal rule of complete diversity between plaintiff and all defendants applies when the stakeholder is also a claimant. Boice v. Boice, 3 Cir., 135 F.2d 919, affirming D.C., 48 F.Supp. 183. But the better view seems to be to consider the interested plaintiff as merely another claimant a......
-
Austin v. Texas-Ohio Gas Company
... ... But to construe the statute differently, as the court did in Boice v. Boice, D.C. D.N.J., 48 F.Supp. 183, affirmed by the Third Circuit, 135 F.2d 919, would result in ... ...
-
Walmac Company v. Isaacs
...Chafee, Federal Interpleader, 49 Yale L.J. 377, 397-398 (1940); 3 Moore's Federal Practice 3033 (2d ed. 1948). Contra: Boice v. Boice, 3 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 919. ...
-
Danville Building Ass'n v. Gates
... ... Boice v. Boice, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 183, affirmed, 3 Cir., 135 F. 2d 919; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Sanders, ... ...