Lavelle v. Belliu

• Decision Date: 01 October 1906
• Citation: 121 Mo. App. 442,97 S.W. 200
• Parties: LAVELLE v. BELLIU et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

97 S.W. 200

121 Mo. App. 442

LAVELLE v. BELLIU et al.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

October 1, 1906.

Rehearing Denied November 5, 1906.

1. INTERPLEADER—REQUISITES.

A bill of interpleader can generally be sustained only when the same debt, fund, or thing is claimed by hostile parties under adverse titles derived from a common source; the interpleader being a mere stakeholder, with no interest in the subject-matter, and without personal liability to any of the claimants, and exposed to the risk of being vexed by two or more suits for the fund or subject-matter in dispute.

2. SAME—BAILEE OF FINDER—RIGHTS.

Defendant B. found a $500 bill, which he delivered to plaintiff to ascertain if it was genuine, and, on plaintiff's ascertaining that it was, plaintiff deposited it in a bank until it could be determined to whom it rightfully belonged. B. thereafter claimed the bill, as did three others, and B. began replevin to recover the bill from plaintiff. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to maintain a bill of interpleader to obtain a determination in a single suit of the ownership of the bill.

3. BAILMENT—RIGHTS OF BAILEE.

Where the bailee of the finder of a bill ascertained that it was the finder's intention to convert the bill to his own use, the bailee could not then return the bill to the finder without being an accessory to the commission of a felony, but was bound to retain it until its ownership was determined.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by Charles Lavelle against James Belliu and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Hairgrove & Stubbs, for appellants. Frank P. Sebree and Thad. B. Landon, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

As the case is to be disposed of on the record proper, it becomes necessary to state the contents of the pleadings and the orders and judgment of the court. The petition of plaintiff alleges that on or about the 20th day of October, 1904, the defendant represented to plaintiff that on said day he had found in the city of Independence a $500 bill of the currency of the United States; that defendant gave the bill to plaintiff, with the request that he ascertain whether it was genuine or counterfeit; that prior thereto the bill had been presented by defendant's father to a meat merchant in said city in payment for the purchase price of 25 cents worth of meat; that after defendant had given the bill to plaintiff to learn whether the same was genuine or not, and after it had been ascertained that it was genuine, he came to plaintiff and requested him to have it changed, and to give $100 to the meat merchants to keep their mouths shut, to keep $200 himself, and to give him (defendant) $200, and that each say nothing about the finding of the money, which plaintiff refused to do; that he placed the bill in an envelope in the presence of defendant, W. A. Symington, cashier of the First National Bank of Independence, and placed the envelope containing the money with said Symington until it could be determined who was the true owner thereof, and the plaintiff at once proceeded to notify the officers of the law of the county concerning said bill, and to advertise in the newspapers for the owner. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Belliu, after he had placed the bill in his hands, made affidavit of the finding of money amounting to more than $10, but afterwards sought to obtain possession thereof in order that he might cash it and use the proceeds, and thereby deprive the owner of his money. The petition alleges that, since the publication of said notices in the newspapers, the defendants William Frye, W. I. White, and Belle P. McArthur have each made and filed with plaintiff a written statement describing a $500 bill, and each claiming to be the true owner of the bill. The petition then sets forth the respective claims of the three persons named. The petition further states that defendant Belliu now demands the bill, and threatens to convert the same to his own use and deprive the owner of his money; that plaintiff has no claim or interest in the money, except to see that it is returned to the true owner, and that he has no knowledge or information sufficient to determine what the actual rights of the different defendants in and to the bill are or may be; and that he is unable to return it to the rightful owner until said rights have been determined although he is ready, willing, and desirous to do so. The plaintiff prays that the respective claimants to the bill be required by order of the court to interplead among themselves as to their respective rights to the money, and that the court adjudge to whom it belongs. Plaintiff offers to the court the care and custody of the bill, and asks to be protected against all liabilities on account thereof. It is further stated that defendant Belliu has demanded of him the bill, and has brought a replevin suit to obtain its possession. A restraining order is asked to prevent the further prosecution of the replevin suit until the rights of all the parties may be ascertained and declared by the court. One of the claimants, William Frye, filed his interplea claiming the bill. Afterwards the defendant Belliu filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's bill and dissolve the restraining order that had been issued. The court declined to pass upon the motion thus filed, whereupon defendant Belliu filed his answer. The answer at first is a general denial, and then follows substantially these allegations: That he found the bill as stated in plaintiff's petition; that plaintiff obtained possession of it for the purpose of having it examined, to ascertain if it was a good bill or a counterfeit one; and that at the time he promised to return the same to defendant, but that he did not do so, but instead secreted it, and refused to return it, although he was so requested. The answer further alleges that defendant is entitled to the possession of the bill by reason of the fact that he...