Case Name: John Francis Strauss and Another, Copartners, under the Firm Name and Style of Strauss & Hedges, Plaintiffs, Respondents, v. Grande Maison De Blanc, Inc., Defendant, Appellant. Carl W. Stern, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-03-25
Citations: 143 Misc. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Francis Strauss and Another, Copartners, under the Firm Name and Style of Strauss & Hedges, Plaintiffs, Respondents, v. Grande Maison De Blanc, Inc., Defendant, Appellant. Carl W. Stern, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 244–246

Head Matter:
John Francis Strauss and Another, Copartners, under the Firm Name and Style of Strauss & Hedges, Plaintiffs, Respondents, v. Grande Maison De Blanc, Inc., Defendant, Appellant. Carl W. Stern, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
March 25,1932.
Bijur & Hertz [Harry Bijur of counsel], for defendant, appellant.
Samuel Shapiro, for the plaintiffs, respondents.
McLaughlin & Stern [Stephen S. Bernstein of counsel], for the respondent Carl W. Stern.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The complaint states a good cause of action against the defendant. The motion to bring in Stern, the adverse claimant, as an additional defendant should, however, have been granted since the defendant did not seek a strict interpleader, under which it would have been discharged upon payment of the amount sued for into court. Both the plaintiffs and Stern claim a commission on the refunds on the theory that they were each the procuring cause of the reductions. In Stinson v. 6-8 West Fifty-seventh Street Corp. (127 Misc. 69, 71) a similar motion was granted, and it seems to us that the motion here should likewise have been granted.
Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint affirmed. Order denying motion to bring in additional defendant reversed, and motion granted.
Levy and Untermyer, JJ., concur.