Guerin v. Guerin, 14773.
Citation | 239 F.2d 909 |
Decision Date | 28 March 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 14773.,14773. |
Parties | Bruce GUERIN, Executor of the Estate of Paul J. Guerin, Deceased, Appellant, v. Alma Pauline GUERIN, and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a Corporation, Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Maury, Larsen & Hunt, George R. Maury, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Myron W. Curzon, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, James S. Cline, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
An action in interpleader was brought on June 16, 1953, by The Prudential Insurance Company, naming as defendants Bruce Guerin, as Executor of the Estate of Paul J. Guerin, deceased, here appellant, Alma Pauline Guerin, here appellee, and several other defendants. The complaint alleged that, pursuant to an application therefor, Prudential issued to Alma Guerin a Life Annuity Contract, wherein $246.00 was payable on April 15, 1952, and on the fifteenth day of each month thereafter until termination, to Alma Guerin, if living, and to others in event of her death. Payments were made to Alma Guerin up to and including January 15, 1953, when conflicting claims were made upon Prudential and payments were stopped. Prudential tendered $1,230.00, the amount due at the filing of the complaint, and offered to pay into court the future installments at the due date of each. Since Prudential claimed to be an indifferent stakeholder, it prayed defendants be required to interplead and each to answer the complaint, that, upon payment of the money due and each installment into court, Prudential should be discharged of further liability with reference thereto "pending the future order of this Court with respect to the payment of future monthly annuity installments becoming due as above noted." A provisional and permanent injunction was asked against other litigation by defendants and particularly an action by the executor then pending in the state court against Prudential, Alma Guerin and others.
It is further prayed: "That upon a final hearing herein that plaintiff be dismissed hence with its costs incurred, including a reasonable attorney's fee, to be paid out of the interpleader funds." There is a further prayer that an order to show cause issue to defendants to show why they should not interplead and why the injunction should not be granted and made permanent.
A separate answer and cross-complaint by Bruce Guerin, as Executor, was filed, which sets up affirmative allegations against Prudential and Alma Guerin to the effect that, to the knowledge of Prudential, the funds used to purchase the annuity were impressed with a trust in the hands of Alma Guerin. The basis for jurisdiction of this affirmative proceeding is diversity of citizenship. It is alleged that Bruce Guerin is a citizen of California, Prudential a corporation of New Jersey, and Alma Guerin a citizen of Arizona. Attached to the answer and cross-complaint is the second amended complaint in the state court, wherein Bruce Guerin, as Executor, is plaintiff, and Alma Guerin and Prudential are defendants, and wherein there is allegation of the fraudulent conversion of the money belonging to the estate and that Prudential knew or had reason to know thereof, and prays among other things that Prudential be declared to hold in trust the community property interest in and to the sum of $90,000.00, or the proceeds thereof, and "that defendants and each of them be ordered to deliver to the estate of Paul J. Guerin any and all properties or assets which the Court finds said defendants hold in trust for the benefit of the estate of Paul J. Guerin, deceased."
A hearing was had upon the question of whether the preliminary injunction be made permanent, upon which the court ordered that defendants be enjoined pendente lite from commencing or prosecuting any action against Prudential except the action in the state court by Bruce Guerin, Executor, vs. Alma Guerin, above referred to. As a condition to the restraining order, Prudential was to pay into the registry the installments as these became due and to give bond therefor.
Pre-trial proceedings set for September 29, 1953, were placed off calendar subject to being reset. "All parties shall not be required to plead to any pleading until 20 days after written notice to do so." Other items not disposed of were continued until further order.
An order was then entered in the following terms:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yanow v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company, 15452.
...we have jurisdiction of the appeal. Though not raised by the parties, the question is here and has to be decided." Again in Guerin v. Guerin, 239 F.2d 909, 913, we said: "This Court must necessarily give first consideration to this jurisdictional point, whether or not the parties raise it."......
-
Smith v. Sherman
...by the parties, is a settled principle of appellate review. United States v. Tinkoff, 153 F.2d 106, 107 (7 Cir., 1946); Guerin v. Guerin, 239 F.2d 909 (9 Cir., 1956). Reviewing the procedural status of these cases, appellee, Mike Sherman, was named a party defendant in the interpleader acti......
-
Uehlein v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 86-1729
...a request to pay out assets within the court's control also does not yield an appealable denial of "injunctive" relief. Guerin v. Guerin, 239 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir.1956). Mrs. Mueller relies principally on In re Feit & Drexler, Inc., 760 F.2d 406, 411-13 (2d Cir.1985), which took jurisdict......
-
Ergo Science, Inc. v. Martin, 4
...Cir.1959); see also Diamond Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenues, 422 F.2d 532, 534 (8th Cir.1970); Guerin v. Guerin, 239 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir.1956); Republic of China v. American Express Co., 190 F.2d 334, 338-39 (2d Cir.1951). In its order, the district court disposed of......