Supreme Council of Legion of Honor v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 26 April 1904
• Citation: 80 S.W. 699,107 Mo. App. 157
• Parties: SUPREME COUNCIL OF LEGION OF HONOR OF MISSOURI v. PALMER et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

80 S.W. 699

107 Mo. App. 157

SUPREME COUNCIL OF LEGION OF HONOR OF MISSOURI v. PALMER et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 26, 1904.

INTERPLEADER — RIGHT TO FILE BILL—REQUISITES—APPREHENSION OF LITIGATION—IDENTITY OF SUBJECT-MATTER—RIGHT OF CLAIMANTS—SUFFICIENCY OF BILL—ATTACK—SEASONABLENESS.

1. Where an interpleader paid the fund into court, and the case was tried and judgment rendered, not on the bill of interpleader, but on the pleadings of the rival claimants, it was too late for a claimant to demand a reversal of the

judgment because of insufficient allegations in the bill of interpleader.

2. A bill of interpleader filed by a beneficial association, alleging that A. claimed that B. was the only dependent heir of the beneficiary, and that she (A.) was duly appointed curatrix of B.'s estate, and as such claimed the fund, and that C., D., and E. claimed the fund as the sole and only legitimate heirs of the beneficiary, and that B. was not a legitimate heir, and asking that it be permitted to pay the fund into court and be discharged, and that the adverse claimants be required to interplead for the fund, was sufficient after judgment.

3. To maintain a bill of interpleader, the same fund or thing must be claimed by hostile parties under adverse title, derived from a common source; and the interpleader must be a mere stakeholder, with no interest in the subject-matter, and must have incurred no liability to either of the claimants personally, and must stand exposed to the risk of being vexed by two or more suits, but it is not necessary that he be liable to two judgments.

4. A bill of interpleader will not lie where the one filing it has assumed inconsistent obligations to the adverse claimants.

5. A bill of interpleader will not lie unless there is doubt about the rights of the claimants, and a sufficiently vigorous assertion of right by each to put the indifferent stakeholder in danger of paying the fund to the wrong party if he decides the matter himself, and in danger of being sued by all parties if he takes no step.

6. Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that interpleader was threatened with proceedings for the fund in its hands by different claimants thereof.

7. A stakeholder who is in danger of being harassed by different suits has the right to protect himself against the expense and trouble of such suits by filing a bill of interpleader and compelling the claimants to litigate the matter between themselves, although the right of one of the claimants is clear, and by reasonable inquiry the stakeholder could ascertain that fact.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Supreme Council of the Legion of Honor of Missouri against Matilda Palmer and others. From the judgment rendered, and from an order allowing the interpleader's attorney's fees, Ella J. Palmer, curatrix of Matilda Palmer, appeals. Affirmed.

J. R. Myers, for appellant. Charles L. Moss, for respondent.

Statement.

GOODE, J.

The respondent is a fraternal beneficiary association, doing a life insurance business through subordinate councils. Empire Council, No. 11, on January 12, 1895, issued to Alfred Palmer, a member of said council, a beneficiary certificate for $2,000, payable on the death of said Alfred to C. B. Smith, trustee for Henry Palmer, the father of Alfred, residing in England. Henry Palmer, the beneficiary, died prior to Alfred Palmer's death. After his father's death, Alfred Palmer did not designate a new beneficiary before his death, on January 19, 1902. He was in good standing with the order when he died, with his beneficiary certificate in force. It appears from the evidence that the Palmer family were natives of England, and that Alfred, prior to his coming to America, married in England; that of this marriage he had three sons, Alfred Henry, Frederick, and Herbert. Of these, Alfred Henry emigrated to this country, and was a resident of the city of St. Louis, Mo., at the time of his father's death. After Alfred came to America, he took up his abode in the city of St. Louis, Mo. Here he married a Miss Bein. Of this marriage was born Matilda Palmer, yet under age. The mother of Matilda died in the year 1887. After her death, Alfred Palmer married Ella J. Palmer, who is the curatrix of Matilda's estate, and the appellant herein. After the death of Alfred, Ella Palmer, as the curatrix of Matilda, demanded of respondent the payment of the beneficiary certificate; claiming that Matilda was entitled to the same as the only "dependent heir of Alfred Palmer." Alfred Henry Palmer, in his own behalf, and in behalf of his brothers, Frederick and Herbert, called at the office of respondent for the purpose of making claim to the beneficiary fund, and disclosed to respondent his and his brothers' relationship to the deceased. He testified that the talk he had with the officers of the company discouraged him, and that he told them he did not know whether he would make a claim or not. But a short time afterwards he called on Charles L. Moss. Esq., the attorney of the respondent, and consulted him in respect to his and his brothers' claim to the fund. As a result of this consultation, the following notice was dictated by Moss, and written by Alfred Henry Palmer, and served on the respondent, to wit:

"St. Louis, March 28, 1902. To Supreme Council L. of H., Fourth Floor Fullerton Building—Gentlemen: About one month ago I called at your office with the view of making a claim for myself and brothers, who are Frederick Joseph and Herbert Palmer, now living at Cheltenham, England, for the amount of the beneficiary certificate which accrued and became payable at the death of Alfred Palmer, who was a member of Empire Council.

"Alfred Palmer was our father, and I desire to file our claim as his children. I was discouraged and deterred from filing this claim by what was told me by your officials at the time of my visit to you. After thinking over the matter and considering all the facts within my knowledge, I am led to believe that myself and brothers are the only legal heirs of our father, Alfred Palmer, and therefore desire to herewith and hereby file this our claim to the moneys payable under the beneficiary certificate issued by Empire Council, and in lieu of his father named therein, who died at the home of my brother, Frederick Joseph, in Cheltenham, England; both my brothers now reside at Cheltenham, and my address is 3736A Lucky street.

                              "Yours respectfully
                                 "Alfred Henry Palmer."
                

After the reception of this notice, the respondent filed its bill for an interpleader in the St. Louis circuit court, setting forth that Ella J. Palmer claimed that Matilda Palmer was the only "dependent heir of Alfred Palmer," and that she was duly appointed curatrix of Matilda's estate, and as such claimed the beneficiary fund; that Alfred Henry, Frederick, and Herbert Palmer claimed the fund as the sole and only legitimate heirs of Alfred Palmer, and that Matilda was not a legitimate heir of the said Alfred—and asked that it be permitted to pay the fund into court and be discharged, and that the adverse claimants be required to interplead for the fund. Notice of the filing of the petition to interplead was duly accepted by the attorneys of the contesting claimants. Alfred Henry, Frederick, and Herbert Palmer filed their answer, alleging that they were the only legitimate heirs of Alfred Palmer, and as such were entitled to the fund. Ella J. Palmer, as curatrix of the estate of Matilda Palmer,...