Drake v. Woodford — 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 994

Majority

p. 994

John H. Drake, App’lt, v. Stewart L. Woodford, Resp’t.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed October 24, 1890.)

Headnote

Intebpleadee.

Defendant is indebted to one S. in a certain sum which is claimed by plaintifl as assignee. It is also claimed by judgment creditors of S. who instituted supplementary proceedings. Plaintifl also claims that defendant promised to pay him. Held, that the promise, independent of the debt, was without consideration, and void; and that as defendant could not pay either with safety, interpleader was properly ordered.

Appeal from order substituting defendant.

Roger M. Sherman, for app’lt; Wm. H. Arnoux, for resp’t

J.—There seems to be no reason shown for interference with the order appealed from.

The defendant, Woodford, is indebted to Sherman iu a certain sum; the plaintiff herein claims it as assignee of Sherman; the substituted defendants claim it as judgment creditors of Sherman, having instituted supplementary proceedings against Sherman. The respondent asks to interplead these two claimants. He cannot pay either with safety, and the only reason urged by the appellant why interpleader should not be ordered is, that he promised to pay the plaintiff. This promise, independent of the debt due Sherman, was without consideration and void, and if other claimants intervene, and the respondent cannot with safety comply, interpleader should be ordered.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Daniels and Brady, JJ., concur.