Case Name: ST. JOHN v. UNION MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05-05
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 1077
Docket Number: 
Parties: ST. JOHN v. UNION MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 1077–1081

Head Matter:
ST. JOHN v. UNION MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
May 5, 1909.)
Interpleader (§ 8 )—Right to Relief—Statutes.
Code Civ. Proc. § 820, declares that a defendant in an action on a contract may before answer, on proof by affidavit that a person not a party to the action makes a demand against him for the same debt, apply for an order substituting such claimant and discharging him from liability to either on his paying the money into court, etc. Held, .that where, in an action on a policy payable to plaintiff as insured’s wife or other designated beneficiary, and if no beneficiary survived to his personal representative, his personal representatives claimed the proceeds of the policy on the ground that plaintiff was not his wife, and that before his death insured had delivered the policy to a friend to keep it until he should call for it, and it remained there until it was delivered to an attorney for his personal representatives, there was a reasonable doubt as to plaintiff's right to the insurance, which justified an order of interpleader.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Interpleader, Cent. Dig. § 9; Dec. Dig. § 8 ]
Williams and Eobson, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Jefferson County.
Action by Stella St. John against the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company on a life insurance policy issued on the life of Jay St. John, deceased. Defendant insurance company conceded its liability, but filed an application to interplead the personal representatives of the insured, oh an affidavit claiming that both plaintiff and such personal representatives claimed the proceeds of the policy, offering to pay the amount thereof into court. Plaintiff claimed that the facts stated were insufficient to warrant an order substituting the personal representatives of the insured for the insurance company, and appeals from an order granting such relief. The facts are fully stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Burns & Burns, for appellant.
Hugo & Yost, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
I think the order should be affirmed. Section 820 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in certain actions, among others such as this, a defendant may at any time before answer, upon proof by affidavit that a person not a party to the action makes a demand against him for the same debt or property, without collusion, apply to the court, upon notice to that person and the adverse party, for an order to substitute that person in his place and to discharge him from liability, by paying the amount of the debt into court. While a mere naked demand is not sufficient to warrant the order, I think the affidavits upon which the order was granted are sufficient to show the nature of the claim, and that there is reasonable doubt as to the right of the plaintiff to the insurance moneys as against the adverse claimants. Under such circumstances, the insurance company should not be subjected to the hazard of determining which is rightfully entitled thereto. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except WILLIAMS and ROBSON, JJ., who dissent.