Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Morris

• Decision Date: 06 September 1932
• Docket Number: No. 6790.,6790.
• Citation: 61 F.2d 104
• Parties: MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MORRIS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

61 F.2d 104 (1932)

MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MORRIS et al.

No. 6790.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

September 6, 1932.

Livingston & Livingston, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.

SAWTELLE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant brought a suit in interpleader against the appellees, and this appeal is from that portion of the decree entered therein denying appellant any award for attorney's fee.

Appellant was the insurer of the life of one Walter Morris, deceased, husband of the appellee Floy K. Morris, on a policy in the amount of $20,000, under which appellee Morris was the beneficiary. Deceased was indebted to appellant for a loan made on the policy, and at the time of his death the admitted amount due on the policy was $16,696.73. At his death, deceased was indebted to appellee Alexander Industries, Inc., his employer, in the sum of $3,600. Subsequent to the death of the insured, Alexander Industries, Inc., made an advance of $750 to his widow, appellee Morris, and took from her as security an assignment of $4,350 of the proceeds of the policy under which she was beneficiary. Thereafter appellant was served with two assignments, one the $4,350 assignment just referred, the other purporting to be an assignment of the entire proceeds of the policy from appellee Morris to Alexander Industries, Inc. Appellee Morris then notified appellant not to pay the Alexander Industries, Inc., any sum in excess of $750, attempted to repudiate the assignments, and commenced an action in the state court to compel appellant to pay to her the entire proceeds of the policy.

Thereupon appellant brought this suit in interpleader against the adverse claimants of the fund, and deposited the money in court, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Interpleader Act (28 USCA § 41 (26), and secured a temporary injunction restraining appellee Morris from prosecuting her action in the state court. The court below made findings of fact as follows:

"That it is true that said claims are conflicting and adverse and that plaintiff is without knowledge, information or belief sufficient to enable it to determine the validity of said claims and that the rights of said claimants as between themselves and that plaintiff does not know and cannot ascertain to whom the proceeds of said policy should be paid and cannot without hazard to itself, undertake to decide as to the validity or superiority of the conflicting claims of the defendants, and it is not proper that plaintiff should be required to take the risk of so deciding.

"The Court further finds that the doubt and uncertainty as to the merits of the respective rights of the defendants to the proceeds of said policy was so great that plaintiff should not be compelled to determine said rights and that the matter of determining the same is a proper matter for this Court, and that unless proceedings for determining the same had been instituted by this plaintiff herein, there was danger that plaintiff would have become involved in a multiplicity of suits and been put to unnecessary cost and expense on account of said conflicting and adverse claims. * * *

"The Court further finds that it is true that plaintiff had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law for determining said adverse claims, and that plaintiff was compelled to employ an attorney for the purpose of commencing and prosecuting this suit to judgment...