Wainright v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1917
• Citation: 73 Fla. 130,74 So. 8
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: WAINRIGHT et al. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO.

74 So. 8

73 Fla. 130

WAINRIGHT et al. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

January 26, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bradford County; Jas. T. Wills, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company against A. A. Wainright and others. Decree of distribution among defendants, and they appeal. Decree affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a bill of interpleader is filed, the better practice is first to determine whether such bill will lie. If it will not, it is useless to go further. If it will, then upon bringing the property in dispute into court, the complainant is discharged from further liability, with his costs, and the court orders that the defendants interplead and litigate the matter in dispute between themselves, which in effect becomes a new and independent proceeding, as between a complainant and a defendant.

Where a bill of interpleader has been filed, if the issues between defendants are ripe for decision, the court may at a single hearing dispose of the whole controversy, including as well the issues between the complainant and defendants as the issues between defendants themselves, and make a final decree settling the rights of all parties at once; and where sufficient appears on the pleadings to enable the court to adjudge between defendants, it will proceed at once. If however, upon the discharge of the complainant the case is not ripe for hearing between the claimants, the court should order an action or an issue formed between defendants as to their respective rights to the fund, and may order a reference to a master to ascertain and settle their rights and upon the trial of this issue a final decree as between defendants is rendered.

Where the right of a complainant to file a bill of interpleader is not questioned, but would seem to have been recognized and acquiesced in by the defendants, and the property in question is deposited in court, an order should have been made dismissing and discharging the complainant from all further liability, with its costs. Where the defendants then proceed to litigate the matters in dispute between themselves, it is not the proper practice for the losing defendant in appealing from the adverse decree to him to make the complainant appellee, since the complainant has no further interest in the litigation, but the losing defendant should make the winning defendant the appellee.

Where a bill of interpleader has been filed, and the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the cause as between the defendants, it is not bound to award the fund or other thing in dispute wholly to him who has the legal title, but may so shape its decree as to do complete equity between the parties.

In equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge, and it is the duty of a party resorting to an appellate court to make the errors complained of clearly to appear, if they in truth exist.

COUNSEL A. S. Crews, of Starke, for appellants.

D. E. Knight, of Starke, and Cockrell & Cockrell, of Jacksonville, for appellee.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD J.

On the 15th day of June, 1915, the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, filed its bill of interpleader against A. A. Wainright, G. W. Wainright, Struble Computing Scale Company, a corporation, Jacob Epstein, Nathan Epstein, Abraham I. Weinberg, A. Ray Katz, and Sidney Lansberg, partners doing business as Baltimore Bargain House, and Lynchburg Shoe Company, a corporation. Very concisely stated, the bill alleges that the complainant had issued a fire insurance policy to the defendant A. A. Wainright on certain property, which property had been damaged by fire, and that it had been ascertained and agreed by the complainant and such defendant that the loss for which the complainant was liable upon such policy was the sum of $603.88, which amount the complainant stood ready to pay to the party or parties legally entitled thereto; that actions at law had been instituted against the defendant A. A. Wainright which were still pending by all of the other named defendants, in which actions writs of garnishment had been issued and served upon upon the complainant, by which writs the complainant was required to withhold a sum of money far in excess of $603.88, whereby the complainant was unable to determine to whom it was required by law to pay the money so ascertained and agreed to be due from it upon such policy. Wherefore the complainant tenders such amount of money into the registry of the court and prays, among other things, that the defendants be required to interplead amongst themselves as to the disposition of such fund, and that the complainant be relieved of any further responsibility to the several defendants as to such fund, and that it be decreed to be entitled to its costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.

Jacob Epstein and the other members composing the partnership of the Baltimore Bargain House filed their answer to the bill, as did also G. W. Wainright, but, in view of the subsequent proceedings, there would seem to be no occasion to set out such answers or even to give a synopsis thereof. Suffice it to say that the Baltimore Bargain House and G. W. Wainright each claim a prior lien upon such fund for reasons which are set forth in their respective answers. So far as is disclosed by the transcript of the record, the other defendants filed no answers, and no further proceedings of any kind were had until the 17th day of April, 1916, when the following letter, addressed to the circuit judge, designated 'an agreed statement of facts,' was filed:

'February 21st, 1916.

'Hon. J. T. Wills, Gainesville, Fla.--Dear Judge:

'In re: Baltimore Bargain House v. A. A. Wainright.

'Geo. W. Wainright v. A. A. Wainright.

'Mr. A. S. Crews and myself agree that on the 5th day of April, 1915, G. W. Wainright started suit in circuit court here against A. A. Wainright in assumpsit and had writs of garnishment to issue and be placed in hands of sheriff of this county on said day against Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, which writ was served on the 6th day of April, 1915, on garnishee, and that plaintiff obtained judgment against defendant in assumpsit on the 3d day of May, 1915.

'Also that Baltimore Bargain House started suit in assumpsit in circuit court here against A. A. Wainright on April 3, 1915, and had writ of garnishment issued on said day and placed in hands of sheriff of this county against above named fire insurance company on the said 3d day of April, 1915, and that judgment was obtained against defendant in this suit on the 7th day of February, 1916.

'Judgment of G. W. Wainright is for $3,185.31, with interest from May 3, 1915, and judgment of Baltimore Bargain House is for $318.33, with interest since February 7, 1916.

'It is agreed that Baltimore Bargain House started suit two days prior to G. W. Wainright, and that writs of garnishment were issued in suit of Baltimore Bargain House two days prior to issuance of writ in case of G. W. Wainright and was served three days prior to service in G. W. Wainright case, and that G. W. Wainright obtained judgment nine months prior to Baltimore Bargain House.

'We further agree to submit this matter to you without argument and hand you herewith the files in proceedings brought by insurance companies to stay proceedings in these suits so that you may enter such orders touching the distribution of these funds between these judgment creditors as in your judgment is proper under the law.

'No other parties except the above have filed answers to bill of interpleader filed by this insurance company, and the above parties were first to have writs of garnishment issued and served, and no order made in suit will affect any claim other than the above, unless you were to hold that others who brought suits later and had writs served should share in pro rata in these funds.

'If you will we will be glad you would enter your order and return files at your earliest convenience as these suits have been pending for some time by reason of our misunderstanding the proper practice to follow.

'With best wishes, we are,

'Yours very truly,

A. S. Crews.

'D. E. Knight.'

On the 17th day of March, 1916, the following decree was rendered:

'This cause coming on further to be heard, and it appearing that by an order heretofore made in this cause it has been...