Case ID: ny-st-rep_52/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ehrlich, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George A. Chamberlain, App'lt, v. George W. Almy, Resp't.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 9, 1893.)
    
    1. Interpleader—Brokers.
    The mere fact that a person claims a share of the original brokerage under some arrangement with the plaintiff, without proof of any employment of such person by defendant, is not sufficient to show such a claim to the “ same debt ” as the Code requires to authorize an order of inter-pleader.
    
      2. Same—Affidavits.
    On motion for interpleader, the justice has the right in his discretion to receive affidavits of either party prior to making a decision.
    Appeal from order allowing interpleader and from order refusing to strike out affidavit filed after argument of motion,
    
      Joseph G. Gay, for app’lt; Phillips & Avery, for resp’t.
   Ehrlich, Ch. J.

The plaintiff’s claim was for $165 brokerage, on which the defendant paid one-half, leaving $82.50 due. The action was for this balance.

Upon application of the defendant, and on proof that one Fan-ton claimed one-half of the original brokerage, to wit: $82.50, under some arrangement with Chamberlain, the plaintiff, the court made an order that the defendant be discharged from liability and that Fanton be substituted as defendant in his place.

There was no such claim to the “ same debt ” as the Code contemplates.

The defendant was not warranted in assuming that, under some arrangement with Chamberlain, Fanton became jointly interested in the brokerage, or entitled to one-half thereof, nor authorized in acting on the assumption by paying Chamberlain one-half of the $165, and then compelling him to litigate with Fanton as to the other half.

There could be no such division or separation of the original debt made by the act of the defendant alone.

There was no claim that Fanton was employed by the defendant, and no proof that he was under any liability to him whatever.

It would seem from the record that Chamberlain was entitled to the entire commission, and that whatever claim Fanton had was against Chamberlain after he had received the whole. Wemple v. McManus, 59 N. Y. Superior Ct., 418; 15 N. Y. Supp., 86; 39 St. Rep., 141.

The justice who heard the motion had the right to receive affidavits from either party prior to making a decision of the motion, and it was discretionary with him whether he would receive Fan-ton’s affidavit or not.

Such matters are very much within the control of the judge who heard the original application.

The order denying the motion to remove Fanton’s affidavit from the record will, therefore, be affirmed, with costs; but the order directing the interpleader must, for the reasons before stated, be reversed, with costs.

FTewburger, J., concurs.