INTRPLEADER. m equitable reedy, av:11181111- to a person against whom two or more persons claim the same thing, debt. or duty. and who is, without his own fault, ignorant or in doubt as to which is the rightful claimant. It was first used in to enable a depositary or bailee of deed in escrow of whom the grantor and grantee each demanded delivery of the deeds to himself (one affirming and the other denying that the terms or conditions had been complied With) \then Stied by either to recover possession of the deeds. to apply to the court for an order compelling the other claimant to appear and he substituted as defendant in his stead. This relief was all that could be .0-anted by a emirt of law, and was originally confined to the above class of cases.
The idea was taken up by the courts of equity, and was extended to cover claims of every na ture, where the demands were identical, it be came the practice to permit one who was harassed by two claimants demanding the same thing, debt, or duty. to file a bill or pleading in equity set ting forth the facts and praying that the parties be compelled to interplead. that is,to contest their claims before the court between themselves. and that the court deeree which of them was justly entitled to the matter in controversy. This was permitted irrespective of whether actions had been commenced or not. Tn this form the remedy exists in modern practice. The pleading by which the complainant brings the matter bufwe the court must, set forth the following facts: (1) That two or more pt rsons make a claim against him; (2) that they claim the same thing, debt, or duty ; t3) that be has no beneficial interest in the thing or obligation claimed; and (1) that he cannot determine without hazard to hiniselt li lel' 1, the rightful claimant. Ile ninst also
show by affidavit that he i- not in11 i out 1 either party, and must allege his %tillingness to perform his obligation to the proper party. Ile must, therefore, be entirely indifferent as to which claimant succeeds; in other words, be in the position of a stakeholder. Very abstruse questions of law often arise as to whether the parties are demanding the perforinattee of the same obligation. l'or example, if it landlord and a person claiming title from an entirely diflerent and independent source, both demand rent from a tenant. lie cannot compel them to interplead, as he is under a duly to his landlord unit to dispute his title. llowever, if a person claiming to have derived his title trom or through the landlord by purchase or otherwise and tloe landlord himself both demand rent, the tenant has grounds for relief. as they demand the obligation, and he does not thereby dispute his landlord's origi nal title.
The will not be granted where it appears that the applicant kmms or should know which of the is butt if there is a reasonable doubt, and he would in running a personal risk to decide between them. with the means of knowl edge at his command, it js the settled practice to allow the remedy. s.:ce Etl•erv: l'i.E.knixt;; and consult the authorities there