Concordia Fire Ins. Co. v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 07 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21791.,21791.
• Citation: 50 S.W.2d 687
• Parties: CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO. v. ALEXANDER et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

50 S.W.2d 687

CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO. v. ALEXANDER et al.

No. 21791.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 7, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Interpleader by the Concordia Fire Insurance Company against George Alexander and another. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the bill, named defendant appeals.

Affirmed and remanded, with directions.

May & May, of Louisiana, Mo., for appellant.

Taylor, Chasnoff & Willson and J. H. Cunningham, Jr., all of St. Louis, for respondent.

HAID, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment overruling a demurrer to a bill of interpleader, directing the interpleader to pay the fund into court and that thereupon it be discharged from further obligation and the defendants ordered to interplead for said fund.

The bill alleged, in substance, that plaintiff was a fire insurance company and that the defendants were residents of Louisiana, Mo.; that plaintiff issued its policy of fire insurance insuring defendant George Alexander, as the owner, against loss and damage by fire to certain household furniture named in the policy and located at 1318 South Main street, Louisiana, Mo., for a period of three years commencing March 10, 1929; that on or about March 8, 1930, a fire partially destroyed and damaged said property; that plaintiff negotiated with George Alexander for the purpose of adjusting the amount of its liability, and plaintiff and said defendant agreed that the amount of loss was $1,900, and plaintiff's liability was determined to be that sum, which plaintiff desired to pay to the person entitled thereto in complete discharge of its liability, and it offered to pay said sum to the party the court should determine to be entitled thereto or to deposit the money into the registry of the court.

It further alleged that defendant George Alexander was demanding that plaintiff pay him the entire amount, claiming that he was at the time of issuance of the policy and at the time of the loss the sole owner of the property and the only person entitled to any part of the insurance money; that defendant Edith Pearl Alexander had formally notified plaintiff that she was at the time of the issuance of said policy, and at the time of the loss, joint owner of an undivided one-half interest in and to all of said property covered by said policy; that after she was apprised of the fact that plaintiff had negotiated with George Alexander and had agreed upon $1,900 as the full amount of said loss she caused a letter to be written to plaintiff through her counsel containing the following: "That the Company have agreed to pay $1,900.00 in full settlement of this loss and you are again notified that Mrs. Alexander claims one-half of this amount and demands that the Concordia Fire Insurance Company pay the same to her. It will be her contention that she and Mr. Alexander owned this property together, and as I understand it, and in order to be perfectly frank with you, she will contend that the agent in this City representing the Concordia Fire Insurance Company had knowledge that she and Mr. Alexander owned the property and that through inadvertence or otherwise the policy was written in the name of George Alexander. You are further notified that in the event the Concordia Fire Insurance Company refused to recognize her claim to one-half of the proceeds of this policy, that she will file suit to collect the same." Whereby plaintiff says that between it and the two defendants $1,900 has been definitely fixed as the amount of loss covered by said policy; that as to one half of said sum there is no dispute and plaintiff has tendered and here again offers to pay defendant George Alexander said one half, to wit, $950; that as to the other half a serious contention and dispute exists between the defendants; that plaintiff does not know which of said defendants is rightfully entitled thereto and has conferred with and negotiated with each of said defendants in an effort to determine which of said parties is rightfully entitled to said money, but has been wholly unable to determine the same and cannot pay said amount to either of the defendants without incurring the unfair and inequitable risk of being exposed to a multiplicity of suits and a double liability for such sum of money which plaintiff rightfully owes only to one of said parties; that plaintiff has done nothing to further the claim of either of said defendants to the fund or to aid either of the defendants in obtaining the same, and the premises considered, it would be unfair and inequitable if plaintiff should be called upon to decide and determine the dispute existing between the defendants and be forced at its peril to determine which of said parties is entitled to said money which plaintiff stands ready and willing to pay to the party rightfully entitled thereto and to pay into court should this court so desire. It then alleged that it had been forced to seek counsel, and prayed that the court enter its order requiring defendants...