Case Name: Tillie Feldman et al., App'lts, v. The Grand Lodge of the Order of United Workmen, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05-13
Citations: 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tillie Feldman et al., App’lts, v. The Grand Lodge of the Order of United Workmen, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 46
Pages: 122–124

Head Matter:
Tillie Feldman et al., App’lts, v. The Grand Lodge of the Order of United Workmen, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed May 13, 1892.)
1. Interpleader—Notice.
In an action upon a 'certificate of life insurance, it appearing that the wife of the deceased claimed the fund and also claimed that in a certain contingency her children would be entitled to a portion thereof, an order of interpleader was granted, making said widow and the children, some of whom were infants, parties in place of defendant. Notice had been served on the widow, but not on the infants. Held, error; that in the absence of notice to them, the infants could not be made parties. (Ingraham, J., dissents.)
2. Same—Deposit.
The complaint demanded judgment for the amount of the certificate with interest, while the order of interpleader only required the deposit of the principal sum. Held, error.
Appeal from order interpleading Babette A. Dobler and others, claimants of the fund, and discharging this defendant on payment into court of the amount claimed.
J. G. Flammer, for app’lts; L. Andrus, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.
(dissenting.)—By the certificate issued to Anton Dobler the sum of $2,000 was payable upon his death to Babette A. Dobler, his wife. Subsequently Anton Dobler revoked the direction under which this certificate was issued and directed the Eayment of the beneficiary fund to be made to Charles Dobler, is son. Subsequently Anton Dobler revoked the last direction and directed the payment of the fund to be made to Frank Joseph Anton Dobler and Tillie Dobler, his son and wife, share and share alike. It also appeared that Tillie Dobler was not the law fui wife of Anton Dobler, and that Babette A. Dobler as the wife of Anton Dobler claims the fund and has demanded payment thereof. There is no intimation that there is any collusion between the defendant and the claimants of this fund, and we think that a proper case is made out for an interpleader and that the claimants be substituted as defendants in this action upon payment into court of the amount claimed. The complaint, however, demands judgment for the sum of $2,000, with interest thereon from December 28, 1891, and the order provides that tho defendant pay to the chamberlain of the city of New York to the credit of this action the sum of $2,000 within ten days from the entry of the order. Before the defendant can be discharged from liability it must pay into court the amount claimed by the plaintiff and the order must therefore be modified so that the defendant pay into court, in addition to the sum of $2,000, interest thereon from the 28th of December, 1891, to the date of payment.
The objection is also made that as some of the alleged claimants are infants and were not represented by guardian, and no notice of the application was shown to have been served upon them, the order would not be binding upon them. But it does not appear that any of the infants have made any claim to this fund.
All that appears is that the widow of Anton Dobler has made some claim that in a certain contingency her children would be entitled to a portion of the fund.
Notice was given to Babette A. Dobler, the person who claimed the fund, and she having appeared on the motion and consenting to the order, the court had power to substitute her as the defendant in the action upon the payment into court of the amount claimed in the complaint, and on such a motion the court also had power to join as a party defendant any person who has or claims an interest in the controversy adverse to the plaintiff or who is a necessary party defendant for the complete determination or settlement of the question involved therein. Code, § 452.
The plaintiff cannot be injured by the failure of the defendant to give notice to the infants and having a guardian ad litem appointed for them, as in case the defendants fail to answer the amended complaint they will be entitled to the fund.
I think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be modified by substituting for the sum to be paid into court die sum of $2,000, and interest thereon from December 28, 1891, to the date of the payment, and that upon such payment being made the summons and complaint in this action be amended by inserting the individuals substituted as defendants in place o'f the present defendant, and that the plaintiff be allowed to make and serve án amended summons and complaint accordingly, and as thus modified, the order should be affirmed, without costs to either party.