BILL OF INTERPLEADER. °nein which the person exhibiting it claims no right in opposition to the rights claimed by the per sons against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons, for the safety of the person exhibiting the bill. Cooper, Eq. Plead. 43; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 32 ; Winfield v. Bacon, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 154; Adams v. Dixon, 19 Ga. 513, 65 Am. Dec. 608.
An interpleader is a proceeding in equity for the relief of a party against whom there are, at law, separate and conflicting claims, whether in suit or not, for the same debt, duty, or thing, and where a recovery by one of the claimants will not, at law, protect the party against a recovery for the same debt or duty by the other claimant. It is out of this latter circumstance that the equity to relief arises ; per Bates, Ch., Hastings v. Cropper, 3 Del. Ch. 165; Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 209; and where the facts present a proper case for an interplead er, equity will not entertain a bill simply to restrain one of the parties claiming the fund in controversy from prosecuting his claims until the other party has failed to establish his claim; Hastings v. Cropper, 3 Del. Ch. 165 ; but leave will be granted to amend by making it a bill of interpleader by adding proper parties, bringing the fund into court, and filing the affidavit denying collusion; id.
A bill exhibited by a third person, who, not knowing to whom he ought of right to render a debt or duty or pay his rent, fears he may be hurt by some of the claimants, and therefore prays that they may inter plead, so that the court may judge to whom the thing belongs, and he be thereby safe on the payment; Pract. Reg. 78; Bedell v. Hoff man, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 199; City Bank v. Bangs, id. 570 ; Cameron v. The Marcellus, 48 N. C. 83; Hall v. Craig, 125 Ind. 523, 25 N. E. 538; Glaser v. Priest, 29 Mo. App. 1.
A bill of the former character may, in general, be brought by one who has in his possession property to which two or more lay claim ; Strange v. Bell, 11 Ga. 103 ; Con sociated Presbyterian Soc. of Green's Farm v. Staples, 23 Conn. 544 ; Herndon v. Higgs,
15 Ark. 389 ; Freeland v. Wilson, 18 Mo. 380; Heusner v. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. App. 336.
Such a bill must contain the plaintiff's statement of his rights, negativing any in terest in the thing in controversy ; 3 Story, Eq. Jur. § 821; but showing a clear title to maintain the bill ; 3 Madd. 277; and also the claims of the opposing parties ; Mohawk & H. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 384 ; 7 Hare 57; Robards v. Clayton, 49 Mo. App. 608; that the adverse title of the claimants is derived from a common source is suffi cient; Crane v. McDonald, 118 N. Y. 648, 23 N. E. 991; must have annexed to it the affi davit of the plaintiff that there is no collu sion between him and either of the parties ; Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 354; must contain an offer to bring money into court if any is due, the bill being demurrable, if there is failure, unless it is offered or else actually produced ; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 49 ; Barton, Suit in Eq. 47, n. 1; must show that there are per sons in being capable of interpleading and setting up opposing claims ; 18 Ves. Ch. 377 ; it is also demurrable if upon its face it shows that one of the defendants has no claim to the debt due from the complainant ; Posey & Jones Co. v. Miller, 61 Fed. 401.
These proceedings should not be brought except when there is no other way for one to protect himself, and in order to maintain the action, it is necessary to show that the plaintiff has not acted in a partisan manner as between the claimants; Hinckley v. Pfis ter, 83 Wis. 64, 53 N. W. 21.
It should pray that the. defendants' set forth their several titles, and interplead, set tle, and adjust their demands between them selves. It also generally prays an injunction to restrain the proceedings of the claimants, or either of them, at law ; and in this case the bill should offer to bring the money into court ; and the court will not, in general, act upon this part of the prayer unless the mon ey be actually brought into court ; Mohawk & H. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 384 ; Richards v. Salter, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 445.