Modern Order of Praetorians v. Merriman

• Decision Date: 22 April 1920
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 849
• Citation: Modern Order of Praetorians v. Merriman, 204 Ala. 197, 85 So. 473 (Ala. 1920)
• Parties: MODERN ORDER OF PRAETORIANS v. MERRIMAN et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

85 So. 473

204 Ala. 197

MODERN ORDER OF PRAETORIANS v. MERRIMAN et al.

4 Div. 849

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 22, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Bill by the Modern Order of Praetorians against F.W. Merriman and others, as executors, for an intervention. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the bill and administering the funds complainant appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.

C.H Roquemore, of Montgomery, for appellant.

J.R Levy and Sollie & Sollie, all of Ozark, for appellees.

ANDERSON C.J.

Mr Pomeroy, in his great work on Equity Jurisprudence, in recognition of the general rule of equitable jurisdiction to grant the remedy of interpleader independent of statute, in section 1320, vol. 4, 3d Ed., says:

"Where two or more persons, whose titles are connected by reason of one being derived from the other, or of both being derived from a common source, claim the same thing, debt, or duty, by different or separate interests, from a third person, and he, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render the debt or duty, or to deliver the thing, fears he may be hurt by some of them, he may maintain a suit and obtain against them the remedy of interpleader. In his bill of complaint he must state his own rights and their several claims, and pray that they may interplead, so that the court may adjudge to whom the thing, debt, or duty belongs, and he may be indemnified. If any suits at law have been brought against him, he may also pray that such proceedings be restrained until the right be determined. The object of the suit is, that the conflicting claimants shall litigate the matter among themselves, without involving the stakeholder in their controversy, with which he has no interest. It is plain, therefore, that the plaintiff can obtain no specific relief. So far as he is concerned, upon his filing the bill, and surrendering up the thing or money into the custody of the court, his remedy is exhausted by the decree that the defendants do interplead with each other, and that he be freed from or indemnified against their demands, and that he recover his costs; with the result of their dispute he has no concern. The ground of the jurisdiction is plain. The party seeking the remedy is exposed to the hazard, vexation and expense of several actions at law for the same demand, while he is ready and willing to satisfy that demand in favor of the claimant who establishes his right thereto. For this liability the law furnishes no adequate remedy, and in most instances no remedy whatever." This equitable remedy is also recognized by our court in the case of Conley v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., 67 Ala. 472.

It is also stated by this eminent writer, in section 1322, that the equitable remedy of interpleader, independent of statutory regulations, depends upon and requires the existence of the four following elements, which may be recorded as essential conditions:

"(1) The same thing, debt, or duty must be claimed by both or all the parties against whom the relief is demanded; (2) all their adverse titles or claims must be dependent, or be derived from a common source; (3) the person asking the relief--the plaintiff--must not have nor claim any interest in the subject-matter; (4) he must have incurred no independent liability to either of the claimants; that is, he must stand perfectly indifferent between them, in the position merely of a stakeholder."

As to Pleading and Other Procedure, this same writer observes, in section 1328:

"The bill of complaint must contain allegations which show that all of the requisites entitling the plaintiff to the remedy exist in the case. It must allege positively that conflicting claims to substantially the same thing, fund, debt, or duty are set up by the defendants; that plaintiff claims no interest in the

...