Meriden Sav. Bank v. McCormack

• Decision Date: 30 July 1906
• Citation: 64 A. 338,79 Conn. 260
• Parties: MERIDEN SAVINGS BANK v. McCORMACK et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

64 A. 338

79 Conn. 260

MERIDEN SAVINGS BANK

v. McCORMACK et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1906.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William S. Case, Judge.

Action of interpleader by the Meriden Savings Bank against Elizabeth A. McCormack and another. Judgment for defendant McCormack, and defendant Waldron appeals. Affirmed.

Cornelius J. Danaher, for appellant. Patrick T. O'Brien, for appellee.

PRENTICE, J. One Mary L. Butler during during her life deposited with the plaintiff sums of money which at her decease amounted to $2,237.17. After her decease, July 4, 1904, this deposit was claimed by the defendant Waldron as the administrator of her estate and by the defendant Elizabeth McCormack as the donee of said depositor and the possessor of the bankbook and an order payable to her signed by said depositor. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action of interpleader, making said two claimants defendants. The defendant Waldron, administrator, feels aggrieved because the court struck from the jury docket the issues of fact which were joined upon the claims and pleadings of the interpleading parties. He asserts the right to place these issues upon that docket and that he duly exercised that right. The power of equity courts to submit an issue of fact to a jury is a well-recognized one. 16 Cyc. 413. We are here, however, dealing with the right of a party to compel such action, and not with the power of a court to permit it. The question as to the defendant's rights in the premises starts with the accepted proposition that in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision a jury forms no part of the equity system, that under that system the court has power to determine all issues, and that no party is entitled as of right to have any issue tried by a jury. We have no pertinent constitutional provision save that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; that is, as it existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Seeley v. Bridgeport, 53 Conn. 2, 22 Atl. 1017. As issues of fact in equity were determined by the court long before the adoption of our Constitution, this provision does not concern such issues. A statute prescribes what issues may be placed upon the jury docket at the pleasure of a party and what may not Gen. St. 1902, § 720. The former class includes "appeal from probate involving the validity of a will or paper purporting to be such, appeals from the doings of commissioners on insolvent estates, and, except as hereinafter provided, civil actions involving such an issue of fact as, prior to January first, 1880, would not present a question properly cognizable in equity." All other issues of fact are to be entered upon the court docket and disposed of as court cases.

The present action was brought by a savings bank. Its complaint alleges, and the allegations thereof are found true, that it had in its hands a sum of money which had been placed with it on deposit, that this money was claimed by the two defendants under conflicting claims of title, that the plaintiff was ignorant of the respective rights of the two claimants, that it made no claims to the money and was ready and willing to pay it over to such person as the court should direct, and that the two claimants were each threatening to sue the plaintiff therefor. The plaintiff prays that the defendants be enjoined from taking any proceedings against the plaintiff in relation to said deposit, that the defendants be required to interplead together concerning their claims thereto, and that upon delivering the same to such person as the court might order the plaintiff be discharged from all liability to either of the defendants therefor. A judgment of interpleader was rendered, and pursuant thereto, the defendants each filed his statement of claim. Issues were joined thereon. These having been heard and determined by the court in favor of the defendant McCormack, judgment was rendered directing payment to be made by the plaintiff to her and that thereupon the plaintiff be discharged. Section 1019 of the General Statutes of 1902, first enacted in 1893 (Pub. Acts 1893, p. 222, c. 42), provides that "whenever any person has or is alleged to have any money or other property in his possession which is claimed by two or more persons, either he or any of the persons claiming the same may bring a complaint in equity in the nature of a bill of interpleader to any court which by law has equitable jurisdiction of the parties and amount in controversy, making all persons parties who claim to be entitled to or interested in such money or...