Fahie v. Lindsay
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multomah County. On the tenth day of October, 1878, the respondent executed and delivered to the appellant a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $300. Thirty days after date, for value received, I promise to pay S. A. Lindsay or bearer the sum of three hundred dollars, in XJ. S. gold coin, and one per cent, until paid. “Portland, October 10, 1878. Arthur Fahie.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multomah County. On the tenth day of October, 1878, the respondent executed and delivered to the appellant a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $300. Thirty days after date, for value received, I promise to pay S. A. Lindsay or bearer the sum of three hundred dollars, in XJ. S. gold coin, and one per cent, until paid. “Portland, October 10, 1878. Arthur Fahie.” On the twentieth day of November, 1878, the defendant, A. B. Lindsay, and the appellant, S. A. Lindsay, his wife, commenced an action in the county court against the respondent, on the said promissory…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kelly, C. J.:
The first question raised by the appellant is one of jurisdiction. He claims that the matters in controversy between the several parties in this suit were not the proper subject of interpleader. Judge Story says: “ A bill of interpleader is ordinarily exhibited where two or more persons claim the same debt, or duty, or thing from the plaintiff by different or separate interests; and he, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render the same debt, duty, or other thing, fears that he may suffer injury from their conflicting claims, and therefore he…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hoyt v. GougeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Crossen v. Wasco CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1882
- Equitable Life Insurance v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
- O'Leary v. FargherOregon Supreme Court · 1884