Majority
Headnote
Interpleader (§ 11[1] )—Divers Claimants—Pleading—Attachments.This appeal is from an interlocutory judg-. ment sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in an action of interpleader, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff is a warehouseman, and as such has on .storage certain personal property, consisting of rugs, antiques, embroideries, and other works of art, inclosed in boxes and barrels; that the property was deposited with it by one H. Ephraim Benguiat and Mordecai Benguiat; that subsequent thereto the defendant Benguiat Art Museum claimed to be the owner, by virtue of an assignment from the depositors, and demanded possession from the plaintiff, and threatened to hold it responsible if delivery were not made in accordance with the demand; that Vitall Benguiat and Leopold Benguiat also claimed to be the owners of the property and have demanded the same from the plaintiff; that the defendant Harburger, as sheriff of the county of New York, also claims to be entitled to the possession of the property by virtue of a warrant of attachment issued in an action pending in the Supreme Court between Vitall Benguiat and another and" Ephraim Benguiat and an
The facts alleged bring the case, as it seems to me, directly within-the provisions of the statute which permit a warehouseman to maintain an action for interpleader. Section 103 of the General Business-Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 20) provides that, if more than one person claims the title or possession of the goods, the warehouseman may,, either as a defense to an action brought against him for nondelivery of the goods, or as an original suit, whichever is appropriate, require all known claimants to interplead. Section 104 provides that where a person other than the one depositing the goods makes a claim to-them, or the warehouseman has information of such claim, he is excused from liability for refusing to deliver the same until he has had' a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of the respective claims, or-to bring legal proceedings to compel all claimants to interplead.
The Art Museum claims to be entitled to the property by virtue of an assignment from the original depositors, the sheriff by virtue of the warrant of attachment, and Vitall Benguiat and Leopold Benguiat as owners. The plaintiff does not know, nor has it the means of determining, who actually owns the property or is entitled to its possession. Under such circumstances, for its own protection, it asks that these different claimants be compelled to litigate among themselves their respective claims. The statute was designed to meet just such, a situation. Beebe v. Mead, 101 App. Div. 500 , 92 N. Y. Supp. 51 . The demurrer was sustained, as appears from the opinion of the learned justice sitting at Special Term, because the complaint alleges that the sheriff had, under a warrant of attachment, levied upon the property; that such allegation necessarily implied that the sheriff had taken the goods into his actual custody. But the learned justice inadvertently overlooked other allegations of the complaint, setting forth that “since the delivery of the said goods, and the receipt thereof by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has retained and still retains said goods on storage as a warehouseman,” and that it is “ready and willing to deliver” them to such persons as the court may direct.
• The interlocutory judgment, appealed from, is reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to the demurring defendant to withdraw its demurrer and answer on payment of costs. All concur.
Cases cited
- Beebe v. Mead 101 App. Div. 500 p. 1074