Lowry v. Downing Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1920 |
| Parties | LOWRY et al. v. DOWNING MFG. CO. et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1920.
Suit by Willie M. Lowry and husband against the Downing Manufacturing Company and others. From a decree against plaintiffs, they appeal.
Reversed with directions.
Syllabus by the Court
Where allegation of amount in complaint's hands is denied, he should be put to proof; bill dismissed on finding that complainant has more in his hands than alleged. If the answer to a bill of interpleader denies the allegation in the bill of the amount the complainant alleges that he has in his hands which he is ready to turn over to the court to be litigated among the defendants, the complainant should be put to his proof before the case is ready for a decree as to whether the respondents should be required to interplead, and if the court finds that the complainant has in his hands a sum in excess of the amount which he offers to pay into court, he should be denied the relief prayed and the bill dismissed.
Not maintainable where defendant contests and litigates claim set up by plaintiff. There can be no bill of interpleader or bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader when the defendants contest and litigate with the plaintiff himself as to the validity and allowance of a claim set up by himself.
Plaintiff put to proof when essential facts denied. When the answer denies the facts upon which the bill depends as a bill of interpleader, the plaintiff is put to his proof before the case is ready for a decree as to whether the respondents should be required to interplead.
Not allowed if complainant has interest other than to have fund properly applied. If the complainant in a bill of interpleader has an interest in the litigation other than to have the fund properly applied or paid to the proper party the interpleader will not be allowed.
Complainant cannot adjust his own claims and ask interpleader as to remainder. A complainant in interpleader cannot adjust his own claims against the matter in controversy, and ask the defendants to interplead as to the remainder.
If amount is result of complainant's adjustment of deductions, defendant may so allege and amount may be inquired into. If the amount brought into court is not the difference between the payments and the contract price, but the result of complainant's own adjustment of deductions he thinks should be made, the defendants are entitled to show that in their answers, and while the amount is not an issue to be settled by decree in a strict interpleader, it may be inquired into to ascertain whether complainant can maintain the suit.
Laborers and materialmen cannot have lien against married women's separate estate, when not in privity with her. There can be no lien against the separate statutory property of a married woman for labor done or materials furnished by subcontractors in the erection of a building on her separate statutory property, with whom she was not in privity.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F M. Robles, judge.
Hilton S. Hampton, of Tampa, for appellants.
E. B. Drumright and A. B. McMullen, both of Tampa, for appellees.
Willie M. Lowry, joined by her husband, S. M. Lowry, brought bill of interpleader against D. C. Walker, with whom they had a contract to furnish all labor and material for the erection and construction of a dwelling house on the separate statutory property of Willie M. Lowry, and against the other defendants who performed labor and furnished material for the erection of the building. The complainants acknowledged an indebtedness to Walker in the sum of $584. The bill contained the essential averments of a bill of interpleader. Decrees pro confesso were entered against three of the defendants, and the others filed answers. Some of the defendants denied the allegations of the bill that $584 represented the balance due upon the contract, and averred that the complainants were indebted to D. C. Walker, the contractor, a sum of money in excess of the amount alleged in the bill, and that such sum equals or exceeds the sum of $1,500.
The answer of another of the defendants denies that $584 is all that is due the contractor from the complainants, and avers that the amount due him is about $2,000.
The answer of D. C. Walker, the contractor, also denies that the complainants are indebted to him only in the sum of $584, but avers that Willie M. Lowry is indebted to him in the sum of $1,803, 'less such sums as were necessarily paid in and about the final completion of the work, amounting to not more than $50.'
A special master was appointed to take testimony upon the issues made by the pleadings, and upon the coming in of his report the chancellor rendered his decree, in which he found Willie M. Lowry to be a married woman; that the property on which the building had been erected was her statutory separate estate; that the contract price for the construction of the building was $8,650; and that they had paid him the sum of $6,847, leaving $1,803 in the hands of the complainant. He further found that----
'The complainants had 'not sustained their bill, nor shown themselves to be innocent stakeholders of the fund tendered into court, but are claimants for certain credits as against the contract price for the construction of said building and claim allowance for certain expenditures which were not part of the contract.'
The chancellor thereupon adjudged and decreed that----
'The complainant Willie M. Lowry, or some one in her behalf, do pay into the registry of the court within a space of 30 days from date hereof the said sum of $1,871.52, together with costs of this suit to be taxed by the clerk of this court, and in default whereof the said sum, together with costs to be taxed herein by the clerk, is decreed to be a specific lien and charge against the separate statutory estate of the said complainant Willie M. Lowry and specifically against the said premises hereinbefore described, viz. lots 8 and 9 of Beach place, according to map of plat thereof on record in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for Hillsborough county, Fla., and that the said premises be sold to satisfy this decree.'
A bill of interpleader is defined to be:
'A bill exhibited where two or more persons severally claim the same debt, duty, or thing from the complainant under different titles or in separate interests; and he, not claiming any title or interest therein himself, and not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render the debt or duty or deliver the property, is either molested by an action brought against him or fears that he may suffer injury from their conflicting claims, and therefore prays that they may be compelled to interplead, and state their several claims so that the court may adjudge to whom the matter or thing in controversy belongs.' 23 Cyc. 3.
One of the essential elements to entitle a person to be discharged from obligation to persons claiming any part of a fund in his hands who is doubtful as to whom it should be paid is that he has no interest in the litigation, and only seeks to be relieved of the danger of being molested by the conflicting rights of others among themselves. If the answer denies the allegation in the bill of the amount the complainant alleges that he has in his hands which he is ready to turn over to the court to be litigated among the defendants, the complainant should be put to his proof before the case is ready for a decree as to whether the respondents should be required to interplead, and if the court finds that the complainant has in his hands a sum in excess of...
To continue reading
Request your trial