New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Odell

The fact (which is conceded by the respondents) that the sum which the plaintiff is willing to pay is not the sum which the defendant and appellants claim is fatal to the maintenance of this action. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Arthur, 90 N. Y., 235 .

In this case the principle is distinctly enunciated that in an action of interpleader the amount due from a plaintiff cannot be the subject of controversy ; and this seems to be simply re-stating a rule which appears always to have prevailed.

It is urged, in answer to this objection, that because the appellants claim more than the plaintiff admits to be due, the case is thereby turned into an action in the nature of an interpleader.

In strict actions of interpleader legal rights are only enforced ; in actions in the nature of interpleader equitable relief, in addition, is sometimes given, and that seems to be the whole of the distinction.

The respondent, however, claims that the rule above stated does not apply, because the appellants could maintain a separate action for the part of the claim which is disputed by the plaintiffs.

It would seem that if the owner of a policy of life insurance should attempt to maintain one action upon the policy for the amount insured, and another action for the dividends which had been declared upon the policy an objection, that the owner of claims arising upon a single policy of insurance could not split up his demands, would be fatal to one or other of the actions.

It would be like bringing one action to recover the principal of a bond and another to recover the interest which had accrued.

In the case of the City Bank v. Bangs ( 2 Paige Ch., 570 ) the claims there referred to were separate and distinct, and separate actions could be maintained upon them.

The order appealed from should be reversed and the injunction vacated, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Macomber and Brady, JJ., concur.