Roselle v. Farmers' Bank

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBrace
Citation119 Mo. 84,24 S.W. 744
PartiesROSELLE v. FARMERS' BANK OF NORBORNE.
Decision Date23 December 1893
24 S.W. 744
119 Mo. 84
ROSELLE
v.
FARMERS' BANK OF NORBORNE.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
December 23, 1893.

INTERPLEADER — WHEN PROPER — JUDGMENT.

1. In an action to recover the amount of a draft collected by defendant, the answer alleged that plaintiff and six other persons (naming them) owned each a one-seventh interest in the proceeds of the draft, and that defendant was holding the same subject to the order of the several owners, when they should determine among themselves, or the court for them, their proportionate share, so that defendant might be relieved of responsibility in paying it out. Held, that the allegations entitled defendant to a rule on the claimants requiring them to interplead.

2. Where it is shown that plaintiff, and six other persons named, own a one-seventh interest each in the proceeds of a draft collected by defendant, which plaintiff seeks to recover alone, and that defendant is merely holding the same subject to the order of the several owners, a judgment against defendant, distributing the fund among the several owners without first making them parties, is erroneous.

Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county; J. M. Davis, Judge.

Action by John E. Roselle against the Farmers' Bank of Norborne to recover the proceeds of a draft collected by defendant. From a judgment for a portion, only, of the amount claimed, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Hale & Son and J. W. Sebree, for appellant. Morton Jourdan, for respondent.

BRACE, J.


In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $2,518.69, which he alleges in his petition the defendant received as the proceeds of a draft for that amount drawn by the Louisiana National Bank of New Orleans on Winslow, Lanier & Co. of New York in favor of the plaintiff, and which was indorsed by him, and delivered to the defendant to be collected for his account. The defendant, in its answer to plaintiff's petition, says: "It is true, as charged in the petition, that on the 13th day of January, 1891, plaintiff deposited with defendant a certain draft for the sum of $2,518.69, drawn and indorsed by the parties therein charged; but defendant alleges and charges that when said draft was deposited, as aforesaid, it was the property, in equal shares, of plaintiff and the following named persons, to wit, John McAuliffe, Henry Beckemeir, John McCuistion, Charles S. Smith, George M. Long, and Benj. Tassaro, each of said parties owning an undivided one-seventh interest in and to the same; and defendant says that said draft was held by said John E. Roselle in trust and as a trust fund for himself and the parties aforesaid, and when said draft was deposited with said defendant, as in the petition charged, it was deposited by said plaintiff in trust for, and to the credit of, the plaintiff and the parties aforesaid, with instructions to this defendant that, when said draft was collected, the proceeds thereof, less the charges for collection, were to be divided, and credited equally to the plaintiff and the parties aforesaid. Defendant denies that said plaintiff is the owner of, or entitled to, the entire proceeds of said draft, but admits and charges the interests as aforesaid. Defendant, further answering, says that the Louisiana State Lottery Company is a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Louisiana, and as such is engaged in a general lottery business in the selling of tickets, and fractional parts thereof, for regular monthly drawing; that on the 16th day of December, 1890, the plaintiff and John McAuliffe, Charles J. Smith, Benj. Tassaro, Henry Beckemeir, George M. Long, and J. M. McCuistion, with three other parties to this defendant unknown, entered into an agreement to buy ten one-twentieth tickets in the Louisiana State Lottery at the city of New Orleans, in the state of Louisiana, for the drawing thereof, jointly and in partnership; that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Lafayette-South Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Siefert, No. 20817.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Julio 1929
    ...if the plaintiff's petition to require them to interplead is sustained. [Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne, 119 Mo. l.c. 92, 24 S.W. 744; Novinger Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 196 Mo. App. l.c. 344, 189 S.W. 826; 33 C.J. p. 446, sec. As is said by the court in the case of Duke, Len......
  • State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Becker., No. 33434.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Junio 1935
    ...to follow the last controlling decisions of this court, for the following reasons: Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139; Roselle v. Farmers' Bank, 119 Mo. 84; Glasner v. Weisberg, 43 Mo. App. 214; State ex rel. v. Kumpff, 62 Mo. App. 335; Granite Bituminous Paving Co. v. Stange, 8 S.W. (2d) 1087. ......
  • Matlack v. Kline, No. 20260.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Octubre 1919
    ...as a necessary consequence. Apropos of this conclusion is the ruling of this court in Roselle v. Farmers' Bank, 119 Mo. loc. cit. 92, 24 S. W. 744, in which it is said, in substance, that an interpleading suit, or one in the nature of same, involves two successive litigations—one between th......
  • Ross Construction Co. v. Chiles, No. 35602.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 7 Julio 1939
    ...St. Charles v. Becker, 336 Mo. 1187, 83 S.W. (2d) 583; Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139, 216 S.W. 323; Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne, 119 Mo. 84, 24 S.W. 744; State ex rel. Mulvihill v. Kumpff, 62 Mo. App. 332; Glasner v. Weisberg, 43 Mo. App. 214; City of Los Angeles v. Amador, 140 Cal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Lafayette-South Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Siefert, No. 20817.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Julio 1929
    ...if the plaintiff's petition to require them to interplead is sustained. [Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne, 119 Mo. l.c. 92, 24 S.W. 744; Novinger Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 196 Mo. App. l.c. 344, 189 S.W. 826; 33 C.J. p. 446, sec. As is said by the court in the case of Duke, Len......
  • State ex rel. City of St. Charles v. Becker., No. 33434.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Junio 1935
    ...to follow the last controlling decisions of this court, for the following reasons: Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139; Roselle v. Farmers' Bank, 119 Mo. 84; Glasner v. Weisberg, 43 Mo. App. 214; State ex rel. v. Kumpff, 62 Mo. App. 335; Granite Bituminous Paving Co. v. Stange, 8 S.W. (2d) 1087. ......
  • Matlack v. Kline, No. 20260.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Octubre 1919
    ...as a necessary consequence. Apropos of this conclusion is the ruling of this court in Roselle v. Farmers' Bank, 119 Mo. loc. cit. 92, 24 S. W. 744, in which it is said, in substance, that an interpleading suit, or one in the nature of same, involves two successive litigations—one between th......
  • Ross Construction Co. v. Chiles, No. 35602.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 7 Julio 1939
    ...St. Charles v. Becker, 336 Mo. 1187, 83 S.W. (2d) 583; Matlack v. Kline, 280 Mo. 139, 216 S.W. 323; Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne, 119 Mo. 84, 24 S.W. 744; State ex rel. Mulvihill v. Kumpff, 62 Mo. App. 332; Glasner v. Weisberg, 43 Mo. App. 214; City of Los Angeles v. Amador, 140 Cal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT