Joseph A. Wing, Admr. v. Christopher S. Spaulding And Others
| Decision Date | 01 October 1891 |
| Parties | JOSEPH A. WING, ADMR. v. CHRISTOPHER S. SPAULDING AND OTHERS |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1891
Decree reversed and cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill with costs in this court to all the defendants except the Robinsons. Costs in the court below to be determined by that Court.
J A. Wing, for the orator.
This is a bill of interpleader, brought to compel the defendants to interplead in respect of money collected by the orator on behalf of the defendant Mrs. Robinson on a non-negotiable obligation given to her mother, the intestate by her brothers, Christopher C. Spaulding and Nathan R Spaulding, who are defendants, and who claim that the money belongs to their mother's estate and not to Mrs. Robinson, who claims it by gift from her mother in her lifetime.
The bill does not allege that the orator has no interest in the money, nor was there annexed to it an affidavit that the orator was not in collusion with any of the defendants; but no demurrer was filed. Interpleader was not decreed, but the bill was answered, and all the defendants excepts Mrs. Robinson and her husband alleged interest in the orator and collusion by him with the Robinsons. The case was referred to a special master to ascertain and report the facts on the issues raised by the answers, and on the coming in of the report the case was set down for hearing on bill, answers, and the master's report, and a decree was entered that the orator pay the money into court and thereupon be discharged from further liability in respect thereof, with costs to be paid out of the fund, and that the fund belonged to Mrs. Robinson and be paid to her.
The master finds that when the orator took said obligation from Mrs. Robinson to collect, she verbally turned it out to him to apply, when collected, on her indebtedness to him, and it is objected that the bill cannot be maintained because of such interest in the orator.
The remedy of interpleader is intended for the relief of those only who occupy the position of mere stakeholders and are in danger of being drawn into a controversy in which they have no concern. It is, therefore, of the essence of an interpleader suit that the orator should be entirely indifferent between the conflicting claims, having no interest himself in the fund or other thing in dispute. Story's Eq. Pl. s. 297; 3 Dan. Ch. Pr. & Pl. 1754. The attitude of the orator in such a bill is thus defined by Lord Chancellor Cottenham in Hoggart v. Cutts, Cr. & Ph. 197: ' His relation to the controversy must be such that on interpleader decreed he can step out of the case altogether. When, therefore, the orator has a personal interest in the fund, his position is not one of indifference, and he cannot maintain his bill. And not only must he be disinterested when he brings his bill, but he must continue to be disinterested--his position must be one of "continuous impartiality."
But it is claimed that the objection of interest in the orator cannot be made now, but should have been made at an earlier stage of the case, before answer and trial on the merits. But in the absence of a decree of interpleader, we think the objection can be taken at the hearing. How it would be if such a decree had been made, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial