Washington Life Insurance v. Lawrence
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff had commenced an action, which in the former chancery practice would have been a bill of inter-pleader, and he now, before the time to answer the complaint has expired, makes a motion for an order that the relief prayed for in his complaint be granted to Mm.
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, J.
I think this order cannot be granted. If a plaintiff chooses to commence an action of interpleader, that action must be governed by the practice and rules which obtained in chancery in such cases. By that practice no such order as the one asked for could be granted until after the bill had been taken pro confesso as against all the defendants. Up to that time the defendants had a right to come in and demur to or answer the bill, and the issues raised by the demurrer or answer were then disposed of in the ordinary manner of disposing of issues; if the plaintiff succeeded on the issues, then he…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Thompson v. EllsworthNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- Wait v. . Van AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Fry v. BennettThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
- Andrews v. WallegeNew York Supreme Court · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.