Schmidt Brewing Co. v. Pittsburgh Life & Trust Co.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 363
• 100 A. 959
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 617

Syllabus

<p>Practice, O. P. — Interpleader—Right to interpleader — Discretion of court — Act of March 11,1886, P. L. 76, Section 4.</p> <p>1. The Act of March 11, 1836, P: L. 76, Section 4, providing that the court may, at the instance of the defendant, under certain circumstances, require a plaintiff -to interplead with a third party where the defendant disclaims any interest in the fund in litigation and where the right thereto is claimed by or supposed to belong to such third party, who is not a party tq the action, is not mandatory; but the court must exercise a judicial and not an arbitrary discretion when it determines the right to the interpleader. If the suggestion sets forth facts sufficient to bring the case within the provisions of the statute, the relief prayed for should be granted.</p> <p>2. The provisions of the Act of 1836 are to protect a defendant from being subjected to the expense of defending two actions and the risk of being compelled to pay the same obligation twice.</p> <p>3. The payment of money into court is not a condition precedent to the right to an interpleader.</p> <p>4. An action was brought against a life insurance company by the administrators of the' insured, and thereafter an action was brought on the same policies by a creditor of the decedent, who was named in the policies as beneficiary. Defendant thereafter filed a petition for an interpleader before a plea had been filed in the second suit, averring that both suits were for the recovery of tibe same funds, that defendant disclaimed having any interest in such funds, that defendant had not incurred any liability independent of such funds to either of the claimants, and that unless an interpleader were granted defendant would be subjected to expense in defending two suits, and the risk of payment of the money twice. Held, the lower court erred in discharging the rule for the interpleader and for leave to pay the money into court.</p> <p>5. In such case the fact that the defendant issued