Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson Banking Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1931
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 979.
• Citation: 134 So. 800,223 Ala. 177
• Parties: MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. ROBERTSON BANKING CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

134 So. 800

223 Ala. 177

MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. ROBERTSON BANKING CO.

2 Div. 979.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1931

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; Benj. F. Elmore, Judge.

Bill in nature of a bill of interpleader by the Missouri State Life Insurance Company against the Robertson Banking Company. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

See also, 134 So. 25.

Pleadings upon demurrer must be construed most strongly against the pleader.

The case made by the bill is in substance as follows:

In 1908 the Great Western Life Insurance Company insured the life of Allen Martin Collins for $2,000, payable at his death to Hattie Allen Collins. The obligations of the Great Western were, in 1912, assumed by the International Life Insurance Company, and in 1928 the appellant assumed all the obligations of both the Great Western and International.

In November, 1919, in accordance with the written request and demand of Collins, the beneficiary was changed from Hattie Allen Collins to "executors, administrators or assigns (estate) of insured, Allen Martin Collins." After such change of beneficiary, Allen Martin Collins, under the provisions of the policy, obtained from the company a loan of $442, pleading said policy for the payment thereof.

Afterwards and on, to wit, March 4, 1922, Collins, the insured, assigned to appellee Robertson Banking Company his interest in said policy of insurance to partly secure a loan made to him by said bank.

In paragraph 3 of its bill the complainant states that Collins died on April 22, 1930, and admits that it is liable on said policy for the amount of the policy, less the advance loan thereon, in the amount of $1,574.21, which amount is brought into court and deposited with the register.

In paragraph 4 of its bill complainant alleges that as to said balance of $1,574.21 it is a mere stakeholder, having no interest therein, is anxious to pay the same to whom it belongs, but that it does not know to whom it belongs, and that there are two rival claimants to said fund, namely Robertson Banking Company and the estate of Allen Martin Collins; that Robertson Banking Company, on September 6, 1930, instituted a suit at law against complainant "for the full amount due on said policy"; that, at the time of filing the bill, the suit at law was pending, but no plea, answer, or demurrer had been filed.

In the sixth paragraph of the bill complainant states, on information and belief, that Collins died intestate, while a resident of Marengo county; that, as yet, no administrator has been appointed of his estate; that complainant had no right, under the statutes, to have an administrator appointed; that as to whether Robertson Banking Company or administrator was entitled to the money complainant has no means of ascertaining; that complainant has not colluded with either claimant, and is fearful that, if it paid the amount due to either the Robertson Banking Company or the administrator of Collins' estate, the other claimant would hereafter annoy complainant by bringing suit on said policy.

The prayer asks that the bill be considered as a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader; makes Robertson Banking Company party; asks the appointment of an administrator ad litem; for an order requiring them to interplead; an injunction against the suit at law; for ascertainment of solicitors' fees for complainant, and for full discharge from all liability.

After demurrers had been filed complainant amended its bill by adding paragraph 7, offering to do equity and proposing that, if any sum is found due, over and above the amount deposited, to bring it into court, that it was no fault of complainant that no administrator of Collins was appointed and that Robertson Banking Company had refused the request of complainant to have an administrator appointed.

By the paragraph added to the prayer, the complainant prays that the court will "ascertain the amount due to your orator on the loan made by it or its predecessor," to the insured, "to the end that it may be ascertained and made certain the amount remaining due on the policy, and what amount additional, if any, it should pay into court."

Rushton, Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for appellant.

McKinley & McDaniel, of Demopolis, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

One of the prime requisites of a bill of interpleader is the disinterestedness of the complainant in the subject-matter of the suit. He must stand in relation thereto as a mere stakeholder, indifferent between the conflicting claimants. Crass v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 96 Ala. 447, 11 So. 480; Wheeler v. Armstrong, 164 Ala. 442, 51 So. 268; Enterprise Lumber Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 181 Ala. 388, 61 So. 930; Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Min. Co., 218 Ala. 296, 118 So. 513; Sov. Camp, W. O. W., v. Partridge, 221 Ala. 75, 127 So. 505; Anniston Lbr. & Mfg. Co. v. Kirkland, 220 Ala. 148, 124 So. 207; 4 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1479.

Nor are the fundamental principles of equity upon which are rested bills of this character in any manner modified by section 10390 of our Code. Finn v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. (Ala. Sup.) 132 So. 632, 633.

The amended bill does not meet the foregoing requirement. The defendant is shown to have brought suit for the full amount of a $2,000 policy, the proceeds of which are also claimed as a part of the estate of the insured. Complainant does not bring this sum into court to be the subject of litigation between the contesting claimants, but deducts therefrom a loan for which the policy was pledged, and deposits the balance only. Complainant does not stand disinterested, but claims an interest in the proceeds of the policy to the extent of $442, thus negativing any theory of a mere stakeholder. Its claim...