N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co. v. . Haws

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This cannot be maintained as an action by the plaintiff to compel Haws and Mallady to interplead for the determination of their respective right to the money in the hands of the plaintiff. The complaint omits to state various facts essential to establish such a right, and contains allegations inconsistent therewith. (Shaw v. Coster, 8 Paige, 339, and authorities cited by the chancellor.) The counsel for the appellant conceded, upon the argument, that the action…