Heinrich v. South Side Nat. Bank in St. Louis

• Decision Date: 14 July 1952
• Docket Number: Nos. 42830,42971,s. 42830
• Citation: 363 Mo. 220,250 S.W.2d 345
• Parties: HEINRICH v. SOUTH SIDE NAT. BANK IN ST. LOUIS. STATE ex rel. HEINRICH v. SCOTT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 345

250 S.W.2d 345

363 Mo. 220

HEINRICH v. SOUTH SIDE NAT. BANK IN ST. LOUIS.

STATE ex rel. HEINRICH v. SCOTT.

Nos. 42830, 42971.

Supreme Court of Missouri, en Banc.

July 14, 1952.

Neuhoff, Tremayne & Schaefer, Bertram W. Tremane, Jr., and Ralph R. Neuhoff, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant-plaintiff.

Edward C. Schneider, Harry A. Frank, St. Louis, for respondents.

HYDE, Judge.

Plaintiff sued defendant bank (hereinafter called defendant) for $8,121.06 to which she claimed to be entitled as survivor of joint accounts with her mother who died January 5, 1951. Plaintiff was also administratrix of her mother's estate. Defendant filed answer and interpleader alleging the accounts were established on December 27, 1950, from plaintiff's mother's accounts when she 'was mortally ill and only as a convenience for paying bills' incurred for her medical attention and not as a gift to plaintiff. Thus defendant's position was that the money belonged to the estate of plaintiff's mother. See Ballmann v. Kaimann, 360 Mo. 544, 229 S.W.2d 527. Plsintiff claims under Section 362.470 (statutory references are to RSMo 1949 and V.A.M.S.); see Commerce Trust Co. v. Watts, 360 Mo. 971, 231 S.W.2d 817. Defendant's interpleader was sustained and other parties, who were beneficiaries under plaintiff's mother's will, ordered brought in; and plaintiff has appealed.

Defendant contends there is no appealable order in the case and that plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed. We think this contention must be sustained. Before defendant's interpleader was ruled on, plaintiff filed a motion to strike which was overruled. One ground of this motion was that defendant was not a mere stakeholder but was an interested party as trustee for plaintiff's minor daughter, one of the beneficiaries under plaintiff's mother's will. The judgment entered June 5, 1951 was as follows: 'Now at this day comes plaintiff, by attorney, comes also defendant, by attorney; thereupon the hearing on defendant's bill of interpleader progresses before the Court upon the pleadings, evidence and proof adduced, and the Court having heard and duly considered the same, doth find that defendant's bill is a proper bill of interpleader, and doth sustain the same, and doth order that writs of summons issue herein on the answer and bill of interpleader for defendants Dorothy Heinrich, Administratrix C. T. A. D. B. N. of the Estate of Clara Koenig, deceased, Carolyn June Heinrich, a minor, and The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a corporation, directed to the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, returnable according to law.' However, the transcript filed herein shows that no evidence was offered at the hearing of June 5, 1951. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment and decree and to enter judgment and decree dismissing interpleader or to grant plaintiff a new trial, which was overruled.

Plaintiff's notice of appeal also specified the two orders overruling her motions but, of course, these are clearly not appealable orders. Plaintiff relies on Lafayette-South Side Bank & Trust Co., v. Siefert, 223 Mo.App. 431, 18 S.W.2d 572, 573, in support of her contention that the order of June 5, 1951 (hereinabove set out in full) is an appealable judgment. However, in that case, the Court made an order 'sustaining the bill of interpleader and ordered plaintiff to pay into the registry of the court the sum of $2,000, plus interest thereon, less $200 attorney's fee allowed the plaintiff, and ordered that thereupon the plaintiff stand discharged from further liability.' The bank did comply with this order; and the Court, in holding that this order was appealable, said: 'As we view the situation, an action of this character really involves two actions or litigations, one between the plaintiff and all the defendants as to whether they shall be required to interplead for the fund, and the other an action between the defendants, if the plaintiff's petition to require them to interplead is sustained. * * * 'The subjects of these two litigations are wholly separate and distinct, and therefore require separate and distinct allegations and proofs. In such case the only decree that plaintiffs can have is that the defendants do interplead. When this is obtained, the plaintiff is altogether out of the suit, leaving the interpleading defendants alone to contest their conflicting claims. After the withdrawal of the plaintiff from the case, the controversy is then solely and exclusively carried on between the interpleaders claiming the fund.'' The judgment in that case was appealable because it did discharge the plaintiff 'altogether out of the suit'.

The situation here is very different. The order of June 5, 1951, did not order defendant to pay the money into court and said nothing about defendant being discharged. It indicated no intention for defendant to be 'altogether out of the suit', leaving the plaintiff and the other parties brought in solely and exclusively to contest conflicting claims. In a true interpleader, 'if it appears by pleading and proof that a bill of interpleader is properly filed, a decree should be made dismissing the plaintiff with costs, upon the depositing by him of the fund or thing in dispute into court.' 30 Am.Jur. 231, Sec. 24. Defendant's interpleader was brought under Section 362.360, and did not ask that the money be paid into court so that defendant could 'be...