West's Code of Georgia Annotated CurrentnessTitle 23. Equity

Chapter 3. Equitable Remedies and Proceedings GenerallyArticle 4. Equitable Interpleader

§ 23-3-90. Grounds for grant of interpleader

(a) Whenever a person is possessed of property or funds or owes a debt or duty, to which more than one personlays claim of such a character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for the holder to act, he may apply to equityto compel the claimants to interplead.

(b) If the person bringing the action has to make or incur any expenses in so doing, including attorney's fees, theamount so incurred shall be taxed in the bill of costs, under the approval of the court, the court in its discretiondetermining the amount of the attorney's fees, and shall be paid by the parties cast in the action as other costs arepaid.

CREDIT(S)

Laws 1952, p. 90, § 1.

Formerly Code 1863, § 3156; Code 1868, § 3168; Code 1873, § 3235; Code 1882, § 3235; Civil Code 1895, §4896; Civil Code 1910, § 5471; Code 1933, § 37-1503.

CROSS REFERENCES

Civil procedure, interpleader, see § 9-11-22.

LIBRARY REFERENCES

Interpleader13, 35.Westlaw Key Number Searches: 222k13; 222k35.C.J.S. Interpleader §§ 12, 53 to 57.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Forms

2 Brown Georgia Pleading, Prac. & Legal Forms Anno. § 9-11-21, Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties (Textof Code Section).

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 1

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2 Brown Georgia Pleading, Prac. & Legal Forms Anno. § 9-11-22, Interpleader (Text of Code Section).

6 Brown Georgia Pleading, Prac. & Legal Forms Anno. § 23-3-90 Form 1, Petition for Interpleader.

6 Brown Georgia Pleading, Prac. & Legal Forms Anno. § 23-3-90 Form 3, Order Directing Interpleader.

Georgia Law of Damages with Forms § 9:5, Attorney's Fees--Amount.

Georgia Law of Damages with Forms § 9:7, Statutory Provisions--Civil Practice Act.

Handbook on Georgia Practice with Forms § 7-8, Interpleader.

Handbook on Georgia Practice with Forms § 24-24, Equitable Interpleader.

Handbook on Georgia Practice with Forms § 24-25, Equitable Interpleader--Form: Complaint for Equitable In-terpleader.

Treatises and Practice Aids

Davis and Shulman's Georgia Practice and Procedure § 29:8, Definition and Nature of Equitable Interpleader.

Davis and Shulman's Georgia Practice and Procedure § 4:16, Interpleader.

Davis and Shulman's Georgia Practice and Procedure § 4:17, Intervention.

Georgia Procedure Considerations in Initiating Suit § 16:5, Relation to Joinder and Equity Interpleader.

Georgia Procedure Special Remedies and Proceedings § 1:7, Equitable Interpleader.

Georgia Real Estate Finance and Foreclosure Law § 8-7, Distribution of Sale Proceeds.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In general 1Affidavit negating collusion 10Attorney fees 26Construction and application 3Costs 25

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 2

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Counterclaims or cross-bills of interpleader 9Discovery 18Disinterest and impartiality, persons entitled to compel interpleaders 6Doubtful or dangerous to act, persons entitled to compel interpleaders 7Existence of adequate remedy or defense at law 8Injunctions 11Jurisdiction 19Law governing 4Necessity of hearing 15Parties 20Persons entitled to compel interpleaders 5-7

Persons entitled to compel interpleaders - In general 5Persons entitled to compel interpleaders - Disinterest and impartiality 6Persons entitled to compel interpleaders - Doubtful or dangerous to act 7

Purpose 2Questions for court 22Questions for jury 23Relief awarded 16Review 27Service 17Sufficiency of evidence 24Sufficiency of pleadings 21Timing of bill of interpleader 13Unliquidated claims 12Verification of bill of interpleader 14

1. In general

An interpleader suit consists of two phases, in the first of which it must be determined whether the bill will lie,and final decree should be entered so far as the prayers of the petitioner are concerned, and in the second ofwhich defendants are required to interplead and litigate matters in dispute between themselves. Smith v. Folsom,1940, 190 Ga. 460, 9 S.E.2d 824; Smith v. Horton, 1916, 144 Ga. 496, 87 S.E. 655.

The claimant in an interpleader case is in a position similar to that of plaintiffs in other possessory actions,where recovery must be had on strength of their own title rather than on weakness of their adversary's title.Whatley v. Alto Corp., 1955, 211 Ga. 718, 88 S.E.2d 398; Conway v. Caswell, 1904, 121 Ga. 254, 48 S.E. 956,2 Am.Ann.Cas. 269.

Interpleader is of equitable nature. Sanders v. Carney, 1968, 117 Ga.App. 645, 161 S.E.2d 380, transferred to224 Ga. 429, 162 S.E.2d 351, transferred to 118 Ga.App. 576, 164 S.E.2d 856; National Auto. Ins. Co. v.Vaughn, 1958, 213 Ga. 806, 102 S.E.2d 1.

The “adverse claims” that authorize interpleader are those which might be brought against the stakeholder by thevarious claimants to the fund which he holds; thus, where the “adverse claims” on a fund have in fact been inter-

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 3

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

pleaded, it is proper to dismiss the holder of the disputed fund as a party to the action, assuming that no furtherrelief against the holder is being sought or necessary. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-22. Glisson v. Freeman, 2000, 243Ga.App. 92, 532 S.E.2d 442; Thompson v. Bank of South, 1984, 172 Ga.App. 579, 323 S.E.2d 877.

Statutory interpleader does not require a pre-existing legal action. Penland v. Corlew, 2001, 248 Ga.App. 564,547 S.E.2d 306. Interpleader 15

The complainant in a bill of interpleader merely stirs up a war and then leaves real belligerents to fight it out, heretiring from the scene to repose in dignified ease. Whatley v. Alto Corp., 1955, 211 Ga. 718, 88 S.E.2d 398. In-terpleader 1

“Petition in nature of petition for interpleader” lies to ascertain and establish petitioner's rights in property towhich there are conflicting claims between third persons, but such interest must be equitable, vested, and sub-sisting. Campbell v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 1943, 197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471, 152 A.L.R. 1111. Interpleader 8(1)

Where there is a bill of interpleader, and the defendants answered, admitting on both sides the fact of the dis-pute, and the absence of any interest in the stakeholder, the Court will, if possible, take such action as will pro-tect the stakeholder, without delay, leaving to the parties disputing, to litigate between themselves as to theirrights. Perkins v. Trippe, 1869, 40 Ga. 225. Interpleader 11

2. Purpose

Purpose of provision of Civil Practice Act relating to interpleader is to bring in additional parties in action at lawwhere there is a possibility of double liability to party plaintiff or defendant. Code, § 81A-122(a). Midland Nat.Life Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 1970, 121 Ga.App. 427, 174 S.E.2d 211. Interpleader 1

3. Construction and application

Interpleader provisions should be liberally construed in order that their utilitarian purposes may be best effectu-ated. Penland v. Corlew, 2001, 547 S.E.2d 306, 248 Ga.App. 564; C & S Land, Transp. & Development Corp. v.Grubbs, 1977, 141 Ga.App. 393, 233 S.E.2d 486; Algernon Blair, Inc. v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of DeKalb,1968, 224 Ga. 118, 160 S.E.2d 395.

Interpleader provisions are remedial in nature and therefore should be liberally construed in order that their util-itarian purposes may be best effectuated. American General Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Vance, 2009, 2009 WL1176383. Interpleader 1

4. Law governing

Where petition was filed prior to effective date of interpleader provision of Civil Practice Act, case was properlytreated as governed by Civil Practice Act in absence of finding that its application in the particular circum-stances would not be feasible or would work injustice. Code, §§ 81A-122, 81A-186. Algernon Blair, Inc. v.

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 4

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of DeKalb, 1968, 224 Ga. 118, 160 S.E.2d 395. Interpleader 1.5

5. Persons entitled to compel interpleaders--In general

The right to statutory interpleader depends merely upon the stakeholder's good-faith fear of adverse claims, re-gardless of the merits of those claims or what the stakeholder bona fide believes the merits to be. Penland v.Corlew, 2001, 547 S.E.2d 306, 248 Ga.App. 564; Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App.535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied ; Thompson v. Bank of South, 1984, 172 Ga.App. 579, 323 S.E.2d 877;Algernon Blair, Inc. v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of DeKalb, 1968, 224 Ga. 118, 160 S.E.2d 395.

A stakeholder is not entitled to protection by a court of equity to extent of being saved from all shadow of risk,and if he is in possession of all facts and there is no question of law reasonably debatable, he is not entitled tointerpleader. Calhoun v. Lawrence, 1961, 217 Ga. 423, 122 S.E.2d 576; Lilley v. Nixon, 1958, 214 Ga. 548, 105S.E.2d 716; Lowery v. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 1953, 209 Ga. 753, 76 S.E.2d 5; Citizens Bank of For-syth v. Middlebrooks, 1952, 209 Ga. 330, 72 S.E.2d 298.

To maintain petition for “interpleader”, there must be at least two adverse claims dependent on or derived from acommon source and against which petitioner has no right in opposition and does not know whom he ought ofright to pay, and he must occupy position of disinterested stakeholder. Campbell v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 1943,197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471, 152 A.L.R. 1111; Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188 Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736.

Where two or more persons severally claim the same thing under different title or in separate interests from an-other person, who, not claiming any title or interest therein himself and not knowing to which of the claimantshe ought of right to render the debt, is either molested by an action brought against him or fears that he may suf-fer injury from the conflicting claims of the parties, a proper case for interpleader exists. Adams v. Dixon, 1856,19 Ga. 513, 65 Am.Dec. 608; Davis v. Davis, 1895, 96 Ga. 136, 21 S.E. 1002; Burton v. Black, 1861, 32 Ga. 53;Strange v. Bell, 1852, 11 Ga. 103.

Under Georgia law, interpleader action may be an owner's most viable remedy when faced with multiple lienclaims by several subcontractors and materialmen. Mullins v. Noland Co., 1975, 406 F.Supp. 206. Interpleader11

Insurer of insureds who were killed in automobile accident in which it was not clear which insured was driving,was not entitled to petition for interpleader on grounds that as result of insureds' representatives' conflictingclaims insurer may have been subject to penalties and multiplicity of suits or actions; claim did not involve mul-tiple claimants to same stake, insurer could not be liable for more than policy limits, and insurer faced no uncer-tainty, but rather had to defend lawsuit brought against its insured and pay up to its policy limits if judgment wasrendered against her. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-22, 23-3-90(a). Southern General Ins. Co. v. Crews, 2002, 253 Ga.App.765, 560 S.E.2d 331. Interpleader 11

An insurance company is entitled to petition of interpleader if it is in position in which it is liable to one of twoor more persons, who claim from it same debt or duty; and, company claims no right in opposition to claimants

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 5

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

and does not know to whom it ought, of right, to render debt or duty. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-22, 23-3-90(a). SouthernGeneral Ins. Co. v. Crews, 2002, 253 Ga.App. 765, 560 S.E.2d 331. Interpleader 11

When a stakeholder finds himself in the possession of funds that are possibly subject to claims by others, an ac-tion in interpleader is appropriate. Penland v. Corlew, 2001, 248 Ga.App. 564, 547 S.E.2d 306. Interpleader 13

Under the interpleader statute, a stakeholder's offer to deposit disputed funds into the registry of the court in or-der to be discharged from potential litigation should not be denied merely because a claimant's case is weak orrests on tenuous grounds. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-22. Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535,546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 8(1)

Former employer had right to interplead in action for attorney fees sought by two law firms that representedformer employee in action against employer, even though one law firm did not have legitimate claim to pay-ment, and second law firm did not represent employee at time of award in underlying arbitration, in light of factthat right to interpleader merely depended upon law firm's good faith fear of adverse claims. O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-34(b), 9-11-22. Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied.Interpleader 8(2)

Vendor was entitled to judgment on request for interpleader in action to obtain commission by real estate brokeragainst vendor and real estate broker which consummated sale of vendor's property where vendor demonstratedthat it was disinterested stakeholder which only desired to be relieved of determining which broker should bepaid and to be shielded from vexatious litigation. Evans v. Cushing Properties, 1990, 197 Ga.App. 380, 398S.E.2d 306. Interpleader 11

Real estate broker was not entitled to interpleader to protect it from liability for withholding purchaser's earnestmoney following recision of sale contract as contract provided for refund if sale was not consummated due topurchaser's default, willful or otherwise, all facts were known to broker, which was responsible for communica-tions between parties, and broker could have no reasonable doubt as to its safety in dispensing the funds in ac-cord with contract. Panfel v. Boyd, 1988, 187 Ga.App. 639, 371 S.E.2d 222. Interpleader 8(2)

It was permissible to use interpleader procedure so as to adjudicate all claims of parties involved in action ori-ginally brought by permanent administratrix against bank seeking damages for alleged mishandling of fundswherein bank sought to interplead temporary administratrix whom it had allowed to withdraw funds. Code, §§81A-101 et seq., 81A-122; Const.Art. 9, § 2, Pars. 1-6. Kelly v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 1981, 160Ga.App. 405, 287 S.E.2d 343. Interpleader 4

In view of existence of claims to surplus fund remaining in hands of assignee of deed to secure debt followingforeclosure sale and in view of evidence indicating that conveyance by grantor of deed to secure debt of hisequity interest in property to his wife might have constituted fraudulent conveyance, assignee of deed to securedebt acted reasonably in refusing to pay surplus funds to grantor's wife and in filing interpleader action; disap-proving language in Holland v. Sterling, 214 Ga. 583, 105 S.E.2d 894. Code, §§ 37-1503 et seq., 37-1505,

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 6

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

81A-101 et seq., 81A-122, 81A-122(a, b). Stone v. Davis, 1978, 242 Ga. 17, 247 S.E.2d 756. Interpleader 11

Interpleader is not authorized in a case which fails to show that the claims, sought to be interpleaded, are againstthe petitioner, are against the same fund held by petitioner, and are adverse, that is, may expose the petitioner todouble or multiple liability. Code, §§ 37-1503, 81A-122. Farris v. U. S., 1973, 230 Ga. 862, 199 S.E.2d 782. In-terpleader 6

Property owner may not defend against lien of laborer or materialman by showing that there are existing claimsor liens of others in like circumstances, but he may force all such materialmen to interplead, placing himself inposition of stakeholder to the fund. Scott v. Williams, 1965, 111 Ga.App. 735, 143 S.E.2d 16. Interpleader 3;Mechanics' Liens 253

Building owners who hired contractor to repair building for a specified amount could maintain interpleaderagainst contractor, laborers and materialmen, and were entitled to injunction against lien foreclosure on paymentof agreed amount into registry of court. Code, § 37-1503. Bryant v. Haygood, 1961, 216 Ga. 561, 118 S.E.2d469. Interpleader 11

Savings and loan associations and bank, which were mere stakeholders making no claim whatever to funds de-posited therein under repealed act pertaining to ordinaries' retirement fund and which were among defendantsnamed in action brought by several ordinaries who had retired under the repealed act, were properly entitled tointerplead members of board which administered fund under repealed act and retired ordinaries as debatable andintricate questions of law were involved and associations and bank were in position in which it was dangerousfor them to act. Laws 1953, Nov.-Dec.Sess., p. 362 amended Laws 1955, p. 645, Laws 1956, p. 805; Code, §§16-439, 24-1701a to 24-1716a, 37-1503; Const. art. 6, § 14, par. 3. Gunby v. Harper, 1960, 114 S.E.2d 856, 216Ga. 94. Interpleader 11

Where sales contract which sellers, purchaser and broker signed contained provisions respecting return of the es-crow fund contrary to some of the provisions in a letter transmitting such fund to the bank which rendered itsduty to the parties so uncertain that it could not, with safety or without danger of liability, comply with the de-mand of either party, bank was entitled to have the parties interplead and determine their respective claims to theescrow fund. Code, § 37-1503. Fulton Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Block, 1960, 215 Ga. 602, 112 S.E.2d 616. Inter-pleader 11

Real doubt or danger alone authorizes one to file a petition for interpleader. Lilley v. Nixon, 1958, 214 Ga. 548,105 S.E.2d 716. Interpleader 8(2)

In order to entitle petitioner to a petition for interpleader, adverse claims must be derived from a commonsource, and petitioner must show that he claims no right in opposition to claimants, or either of them. NationalAuto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 1958, 213 Ga. 806, 102 S.E.2d 1. Interpleader 8(1)

Where sister of deceased depositor notified savings and loan association that depositor had made sister a gift

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 7

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

causa mortis of deposit book and savings account and thereafter brought suit against association to recoveramount of deposit, and administrator of estate of deceased depositor notified association that no valid gift ortransfer of deposit had been made to depositor's sister and that deposit constituted part of estate of deceased de-positor and demanded payment to him, association was properly permitted to maintain bill of interpleader, andto have depositor's sister enjoined from maintaining suit against association. Code, §§ 16-349, 37-1503. Morrisv. Fulton County Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 1955, 211 Ga. 900, 89 S.E.2d 489. Interpleader 11; Interplead-er 32

Where no one questioned right of holder of security deed to property covered by fire insurance to recover hisloss out of proceeds of fire policy, his claim could not be basis of bill of interpleader to determine right to pro-ceeds. Almand v. Reese, 1952, 209 Ga. 138, 71 S.E.2d 223. Interpleader 8(2)

Before a claim will be held of such character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for holder to act, so as to fur-nish basis for interpleader, there must be a close question of law or fact. Code, § 37-1503. Almand v. Reese,1952, 209 Ga. 138, 71 S.E.2d 223. Interpleader 8(2)

Where fire insurer knew that deceased insured owed debts and that administration of her estate would be neces-sary, there was no reasonable doubt of right of administrator to proceeds of insurance, and insurer was not en-titled to maintain bill of interpleader because of claims of insured's heir at law or his trustee in bankruptcy.Code, § 37-1503. Almand v. Reese, 1952, 209 Ga. 138, 71 S.E.2d 223. Interpleader 8(2)

Under interpleader statute, a bank which has rented a deposit box to which widow and administrator of deceasedhusband's estate claim right of entry need not decide at its peril either close questions of fact or nice questions oflaw, but when bank is in possession of all the facts and the questions of law are not intricate or debatable, peti-tion for interpleader will be denied. Code, § 37-1503. Mandeville v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 1950, 206 Ga.426, 57 S.E.2d 553. Interpleader 8(2)

Under interpleader statute and under safety deposit box agreement giving either husband or wife right of entry,either wife or administrator of deceased husband's estate could enter the box, and bank was not confronted withintricate or debatable questions of law such as would entitle bank to bring interpleader. Code, § 37-1503.Mandeville v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 1950, 206 Ga. 426, 57 S.E.2d 553. Interpleader 8(2)

A compensated trustee of trust created by voluntary agreement could not maintain suit to compel interpleaderbetween beneficiary of trust created by settlor's predeceased husband, which trust had been terminated by settlorunder provisions of the prior trust, and executrix of settlor's deceased son who did not claim under, but antagon-istically to, trust agreement, under will of settlor's predeceased husband. Campbell v. Trust Co. of Georgia,1943, 197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471, 152 A.L.R. 1111. Interpleader 11

A compensated trustee was not entitled to have direction of court under instrument creating him trustee by in-voking construction of will of third person in determining which of two claimants was entitled to property heldin trust, where only one of claimants asserted claim under the trust and other claimant asserted claim under will

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 8

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

of third person, but trustee had duty of defending title to property held under agreement. Campbell v. Trust Co.of Georgia, 1943, 197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471, 152 A.L.R. 1111. Interpleader 11

A compensated trustee did not have such interest in property held by it under trust indenture to which anotherclaimed paramount title under will of third person to that of donor of trust, as permitted trustee to maintain peti-tion in nature of petition for interpleader. Campbell v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 1943, 197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471,152 A.L.R. 1111. Interpleader 13

Under statute providing that a person possessing funds to which more than one person shall lay claim of such acharacter as to render it dangerous for the holder to act may apply to equity to compel the claimants to inter-plead, such a petition will not lie if the holder knows all the facts and the questions of law under repeated de-cisions are not intricate or debatable, but it is not incumbent upon the holder to decide at his peril either closequestions of fact or nice questions of law and in such case he may require the parties in interest to set up theirclaims for determination. Code, § 37-1503. Cannon v. Williams, 1942, 194 Ga. 808, 22 S.E.2d 838. Interpleader8(2)

Bank, which held bequest in trust for legatee who was entitled thereto in event he claimed the bequest in 14years and who in fact claimed the bequest within such period, could not require temporary administrator of leg-atee's estate, and alternative legatee and others to interplead, since no reasonable doubt of temporary adminis-trator's right to the fund existed. Code 1933, §§ 37-1503, 85-903, 108-112, 113-1207, 113-1221, 113-1511. Las-siter v. Bank of Dawson, 1940, 191 Ga. 208, 11 S.E.2d 910. Interpleader 8(2)

A bailee could not maintain interpleader proceeding to require bailor and another to determine conflicting claimsto stock certificate in hands of bailee on ground that bailee was entitled to such relief in order to prevent a multi-plicity of suits. Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188 Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736. Interpleader 6

Security deed holder held not entitled to maintain bill for interpleader to require grantee to set up facts with re-spect to tax executions purchased by holder of prior security deed against grantee's properties so that pro rataamount chargeable against separate properties of grantee could be determined. Code 1933, § 37-1503. MillenHotel Co. v. Chastaine, 1936, 183 Ga. 172, 188 S.E. 4. Interpleader 13

“Doubt” authorizing person possessing property or funds or owing debt or duty to which more than one personlays claim to maintain interpleader must be reasonable and may not be created in order to excuse performance ofobligation. Code 1933, § 37-1503. Daniel v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 1936, 182 Ga. 384, 185 S.E. 696.Interpleader 8(2)

State depository having state funds on deposit when state treasurer was suspended by Governor and anothertreasurer appointed held not entitled to maintain interpleader to determine to whom state money should be paid,since depository could discharge obligation to state by accounting for funds to new appointee. Code 1933, §§37-1503, 40-206, 40-207; Const. art. 5, § 1, par. 18. Daniel v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 1936, 182 Ga.384, 185 S.E. 696. Interpleader 8(2)

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 9

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Third party tort-feasor against whom employee recovered judgment for injuries held entitled to require employ-ee, employee's attorneys, and employer, to interplead, for purpose of determining who was entitled to paymentof judgment, notwithstanding employee's transfer of judgment to his attorneys, where employer had right of sub-rogation for compensation payments and medical expenses. Code 1933, §§ 37-1503, 114-403, 114-501. Johnsonv. Harbison-Walker Mining Co., 1936, 181 Ga. 630, 183 S.E. 791. Interpleader 11

Plaintiff could not interplead claimants to brokerage commission, where claimants' answers and supporting evid-ence showed agreement with, and possible liability to, each claimant. Gardner v. Haas, Howell & Dodd, 1934,178 Ga. 685, 173 S.E. 863. Interpleader 10

Carrier, if unable to determine title to property demanded while in transit, should file interpleader rather than de-termine for itself conflicting claims. Civ.Code 1910, § 2739. Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 1929, 40 Ga.App. 448,150 S.E. 100. Interpleader 11

Plaintiff executing note indorsed to bank could compel bank and payee both claiming indebtedness to interpleadand have court determine to whom plaintiff owed claim. Civ.Code 1910, § 5471. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Lattimore,1929, 168 Ga. 547, 148 S.E. 396. Interpleader 11

Where one sues insurer for amount of policy and another sues for amount of policy and damages, this does notpresent case for strict bill of interpleader by insurer. Andrews v. Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 1916,145 Ga. 472, 89 S.E. 522. Interpleader 7

Where two persons claim a debt, and the debtor, in a petition against them for strict interpleader, pursuant toCiv.Code 1910, § 5471, denies that he is indebted to one of them, an order for such interpleader will not be gran-ted. Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. W. L. Jones Co., 1914, 141 Ga. 619, 81 S.E. 1033. Interpleader 26

Where the question is not to which of several claimants a debt is owing, but whether the debtor is liable to eachof the two holders of notes, Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, does not authorize a proceeding for interpleader. Manufac-turers' Finance Co. v. W. L. Jones Co., 1914, 141 Ga. 619, 81 S.E. 1033. Interpleader 10

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, a person having in his possession property or funds claimed by more than oneperson may compel the claimants to interplead, where the claims are of such a character as to render it doubtfulhow he should act. Watters v. Lanford, 1913, 140 Ga. 249, 78 S.E. 847. Interpleader 8(2)

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, authorizing claimants to money or property in the hands of another to interplead,a tenant, declaring his inability to determine who was legally entitled to the rent, and offering to deliver the rentinto court, and praying that the contesting claimants interplead, was entitled to an order for an interpleader andan interlocutory injunction. Ball v. Madden, 1913, 139 Ga. 727, 78 S.E. 26. Interpleader 11

A plaintiff, on a petition against two defendants containing an alternative statement of facts, wherein plaintiff al-

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 10

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

leges that if one statement be true one defendant is indebted to him, and if the other statement is true the otherdefendant is indebted to him, and praying that defendants be required to interplead, so as to determine which oneis liable to him, and, upon the liability being fixed, that plaintiff have judgment against such defendant, cannotrequire such defendants to interplead and settle their respective rights, to determine which one is liable toplaintiff; Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, providing that whenever one is possessed of property, or owes a debt or duty,to which more than one person lays claim, and the claims are such as to render it doubtful or dangerous for theholder to act, he may apply to equity to compel the claimants to interplead. W.D. Price & Co. v. Virginia-Caro-lina Chemical Co., 1911, 136 Ga. 175, 71 S.E. 4. Interpleader 3

One indebted on a note representing the balance of the unpaid purchase money for land in Georgia, to which heheld bond for title, can bring a proceeding in the nature of a bill of interpleader against two foreign administrat-ors with the will annexed of the deceased payee, where each of the administrators claims that he is the rightfullyappointed administrator and entitled to collect the money due on the notes, and petitioner cannot, without reas-onable apprehension, determine which of the two claimants is rightfully entitled to the fund, upon offering topay the fund in controversy into the registry of the court, that it may be awarded to the successful one of theparties required to interplead. McKinney v. Daniels, 1910, 135 Ga. 157, 68 S.E. 1095. Interpleader 11

Where several persons claim from a common source conflicting interests in a fund held by a stakeholder whichis insufficient to pay all, and there is doubt as to the person to whom the money should be paid, the stakeholdermay compel all parties to interplead and enjoin the prosecution of separate suits. Western & A. Ry. Co. v. UnionInv. Co., 1907, 128 Ga. 74, 57 S.E. 100. Interpleader 8(2)

Where, pending a suit by creditors of the holder of a certificate of deposit issued by a firm of bankers, anothersuit was brought by the present holder of the certificate, who took it from the former holder after the first suitwas brought, the bank may have an order of interpleader. James v. Sams, 1892, 90 Ga. 404, 17 S.E. 962. Inter-pleader 11

When a warehouseman received cotton for storage and sale, and afterwards sold it, as he alleges, in pursuance ofthe instructions of his principal bailor, to a purchaser who subsequently stored the cotton in his warehouse, andclaims the title to the same; and the original bailor of the cotton also claims it on the ground that the warehouse-man had no authority to sell it: Held, that the facts of the case did not authorize the warehouseman to file a billof interpleader, enjoining the parties, claiming the cotton, from suing him and to compel them to litigate witheach other as to the title of the cotton which he had sold to one of them as such warehouseman. Tyus v. Rust,1868, 37 Ga. 574, 95 Am.Dec. 365. Interpleader 11

6. ---- Disinterest and impartiality, persons entitled to compel interpleaders

Necessary ingredient of equitable interpleader is that stakeholder be disinterested. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. v.Emerson, 1970, 121 Ga.App. 427, 174 S.E.2d 211; Calhoun v. Lawrence, 1961, 217 Ga. 423, 122 S.E.2d 576;Holland v. Sterling, 1958, 214 Ga. 583, 105 S.E.2d 894; National Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 1958, 213 Ga. 806,102 S.E.2d 1; Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188 Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736; Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. W. L. JonesCo., 1914, 141 Ga. 619, 81 S.E. 1033; Adams v. Dixon, 1856, 19 Ga. 513, 65 Am.Dec. 608.

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 11

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

In action involving formerly married couple's competing claims of ownership in a life insurance policy, formerhusband's counterclaim against insurer, seeking either declaration of ownership in policy or reimbursement ofpremiums paid, did not by itself make insurer an interested stakeholder as to preclude its discharge from disputethrough interpleader action; insurer demonstrated that it was a disinterested stakeholder, which only desired tobe relieved from determining whether former wife or former husband was the legal owner of the life insurancepolicy it issued and to be shielded from vexatious litigation arising from the dispute. American General Life &Acc. Ins. Co. v. Vance, 2009, 297 Ga.App. 677, 678 S.E.2d 135. Interpleader 21

The holder of the contested property need not decide at his peril either close questions of fact or of law to entitlehim to have the parties at interest set up their claims for determination; thus, an insurer is entitled to a petition ofinterpleader if it is in a position in which it is liable to one of two or more persons, who claim from it the samedebt or duty, and the company claims no right in opposition to the claimants and does not know to whom itought, of right, to render the debt or duty. American General Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Vance, 2009, 297 Ga.App.677, 678 S.E.2d 135. Interpleader 8(2); Interpleader 11

Defendant insurance company which denied liability to plaintiff supervisor as well as to discharged agents forcommissions was not disinterested stakeholder and could not join discharged agent who was resident of countyother than county wherein suit was brought on equitable interpleader theory. Const. art. 6, § 14, par. 3; Code, §§37-1503, 81A-122(a). Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Emerson, 1970, 121 Ga.App. 427, 174 S.E.2d 211. Inter-pleader 10

As petitioner for interpleader may assert no rights in opposition to claimants of fund, petitioner could not main-tain interpleader proceeding for adjudication of various parties' rights in overplus at foreclosure where petitionersought to charge grantor of loan deed under which foreclosure sale was had, as one of the parties, with attorney'sfees but made no allegations of any compliance with statute disallowing such fees unless debtor fail to pay debton or before return day of court to which suit is brought. Code, § 20-506. Holland v. Sterling, 1958, 214 Ga.583, 105 S.E.2d 894. Interpleader 10

Where a double liability was possible for brokers' commission against owner of real estate, the owner was not inthat disinterested attitude as to conflicting claimants which was essential to a bill of interpleader or bill in thenature of interpleader. Lilley v. Nixon, 1958, 214 Ga. 548, 105 S.E.2d 716. Interpleader 10

Fire insurer was not entitled to maintain bill of interpleader to determine right to insurance proceeds where in-surer had made a settlement with one of claimants, since insurer was not thereafter a disinterested stakeholder.Code, § 37-1503. Almand v. Reese, 1952, 209 Ga. 138, 71 S.E.2d 223. Interpleader 10

Trustee has such interest in property held by it under trust indenture to which another claims paramount title un-der will of third person to that of donor of trust, as precludes trustee to have claimant under will interplead withtrustee. Campbell v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 1943, 197 Ga. 37, 28 S.E.2d 471, 152 A.L.R. 1111. Interpleader 10

An owner of property who had in his possession the balance due under contract for erection of house could

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 12

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

maintain interpleader to compel contractor's trustee in bankruptcy and materialmen claiming under assertedequitable assignments from contractor to litigate their rights between themselves, in absence of showing thatowner had incurred any independent liability to materialmen or was a wrongdoer. Code 1933, § 37-1503. Smithv. Folsom, 1940, 190 Ga. 460, 9 S.E.2d 824. Interpleader 10

A bailee of stock certificate could not maintain interpleader suit to compel bailor and another to set up their re-spective claims to stock certificate since there was an independent personal liability of bailee to his bailor withrespect to subject of bailment. Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188 Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736. Interpleader 10

Ordinarily, a person who does not occupy the position of disinterested stakeholder cannot maintain an equitableproceeding to compel other claimants to interplead concerning the fund or property, but it is often allowable forperson so situated to file a petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader, but only wherein he seeks affirmativerelief independently of the fact of the conflicting claims of two or more defendants. Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736. Interpleader 10

A petition to require bailor and another to interplead and set up respective claims to certificate of stock in handsof bailee where no affirmative relief independent of the conflicting claims of bailor and another was soughtcould not be maintained on ground that it was a petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader and not a strict billof “interpleader.” Wight v. Ferrell, 1939, 188 Ga. 200, 3 S.E.2d 736. Interpleader 10

Executor's petition seeking determination of claims to devised property held not sustainable as bill of strict inter-pleader, since executor was not disinterested stakeholder. Civ.Code 1910, § 5471. Phillips v. Kelly, 1932, 176Ga. 111, 167 S.E. 281. Interpleader 10

Where plaintiff, the owner of certain land, seeks to interplead defendants claiming commissions for the sale ofthe land, and an answer of one defendant alleged that plaintiff had agreed to pay the commission subject to anagreement with one of the members of defendants' firm, and there was a dispute with plaintiff as to the terms ofthe agreement, and as to a custom in the neighborhood as to commissions, where property was listed with morethan one agent, petitioner was no longer a disinterested stakeholder, as shown by his petition, and unauthorizedto enforce his demand for interpleader. Little & Green v. Davis, 1913, 140 Ga. 212, 78 S.E. 842. Interpleader 10

7. ---- Doubtful or dangerous to act, persons entitled to compel interpleaders

The statute, permitting an interpleader suit if one is possessed of property or funds to which more than one per-son lays claim of such character as to render it dangerous for the holder to act, requires that the conflictingclaims be of such character as to justify a reasonable doubt or reasonable apprehension of danger. Code 1933, §37-1503. Lassiter v. Bank of Dawson, 1940, 191 Ga. 208, 11 S.E.2d 910; Reed v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,1950, 206 Ga. 604, 58 S.E.2d 183; Knight v. Jackson, 1923, 156 Ga. 165, 118 S.E. 661.

A petition for interpleader, by a holder of funds or property, will lie when there are two or more conflictingclaims thereto of such character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for holder to act, under close disputedquestions of fact or debatable questions of law which have not been adjudicated by court. Code, § 37-1503.

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 13

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Gunby v. Harper, 1960, 114 S.E.2d 856, 216 Ga. 94. Interpleader 8(2)

In action on two accidental death insurance policies by insured's mother, defendant insurance company's inter-pleader petition, not challenged by demurrer or otherwise, showed that plaintiffs and insured's widow's conflict-ing claims to proceeds of policies as alleged legal beneficiaries thereof were of such character as to render itdoubtful or dangerous for company to pay either, so that judgment permitting it to pay amount due into court'sregistry and then be discharged from further liability was not erroneous. Code, § 37-1503. Sanders v. Progress-ive Life Ins. Co., 1956, 212 Ga. 674, 94 S.E.2d 871. Interpleader 11

Where administratrix admits owing money on notes and there are two claims of legal title to notes of such char-acter as to render it doubtful or dangerous to pay money to either claimant, she may, by equitable petition, re-quire them to interplead. Millsap v. Waco Mercantile Co., 1916, 88 S.E. 673, 145 Ga. 95. Interpleader 8(2)

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, an equitable proceeding lies where a person is possessed of funds, or owes a debtor duty to which more than one person lays claim, and the claims are of such a character as to render it doubtfulor dangerous for him to act. Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. W. L. Jones Co., 1914, 141 Ga. 619, 81 S.E. 1033.Interpleader 1.5

A warehouseman who issued for cotton a receipt providing for redelivery “to this receipt only” could not main-tain a petition of interpleader against different claimants of the cotton, under Code, § 3235, allowing such peti-tions, where the conflicting claims of defendants are of such a character as to render it doubtful or dangerous forplaintiff to act. National Bank of Augusta v. Augusta Cotton Compress Co., 1896, 99 Ga. 286, 25 S.E. 686. In-terpleader 8(2)

8. Existence of adequate remedy or defense at law

Claims against fire insurer by garnishing creditors did not authorize fire insurer, as garnishee, to maintain a billof interpleader, since insurer had an adequate defense at law by setting out in answer facts with respect to pos-session of fund in its possession. Code, § 37-1503. Almand v. Reese, 1952, 209 Ga. 138, 71 S.E.2d 223. Inter-pleader 2

9. Counterclaims or cross-bills of interpleader

Assuming counterclaim was for equitable interpleader, issues raised by counterclaim were not shared by com-plaint, so that grant of relief on counterclaim was not inconsistent with denial of relief requested in complaint ontheory that, when superior court granted interpleader, it assumed equitable jurisdiction and could not thereafterrelegate issues raised in complaint to court with no equitable powers. O.C.G.A. § 23-3-90. Taylor v. Mosley,1984, 252 Ga. 325, 314 S.E.2d 184. Interpleader 24

Sufficiency of insurer's counterclaim for interpleader did not turn on whether there was any merit in claims as-serted against it. Code, § 81A-122(a). Insurance Co. of North America v. Citizens Bank of Gainesville, 1969,225 Ga. 347, 168 S.E.2d 578. Interpleader 24

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 14

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Fire insurer's counterclaim to implead loss payee, insured, and a second fire insurer which had issued to insurer'sformer wife a policy on same property, alleging, inter alia, that it was exposed to multiple liability in excess offace amount of its policy of insurance and was faced with a multiplicity of suits, stated a claim for interpleader.Code, §§ 81A-122(a), 81A-321. Insurance Co. of North America v. Citizens Bank of Gainesville, 1969, 225 Ga.347, 168 S.E.2d 578. Interpleader 24

Where fire insurer sought to implead loss payee, insured, and a second fire insurer which had issued to insured'sformer wife a policy on same property, alleged facts that insurer failed to fulfill its policy obligations to losspayee and that insurer was served with notice of voucher into litigation between insured's former wife andsecond insurer and had opportunity to determine its liability there were not grounds for denying interpleader.Code, §§ 81A-122(a), 81A-321. Insurance Co. of North America v. Citizens Bank of Gainesville, 1969, 225 Ga.347, 168 S.E.2d 578. Interpleader 24

Where interpleader will not lie, cross-petition by one defendant against another in the interpleader will not beentertained to try issue between such defendants. Code 1933, § 37-1503. Daniel v. Citizens & Southern Nat.Bank, 1936, 182 Ga. 384, 185 S.E. 696. Interpleader 24

10. Affidavit negating collusion

Failure to object to interpleader petition and filing of answer impliedly waived affidavit as to no collusion re-quired by statute in interpleader complaint. Code, § 37-1504. White v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.,1975, 234 Ga. 186, 215 S.E.2d 240. Interpleader 25

Under Civ.Code 1910, §§ 5471, 5472, where petition in nature of bill for interpleader does not show that peti-tioner is not in collusion with either party, but verifying affidavit makes such showing, petition is not demur-rable. Andrews v. Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 1916, 145 Ga. 472, 89 S.E. 522. Interpleader 25

As against a special demurrer, a sworn allegation or an affidavit of noncollusion by the person seeking relief isindispensable to a petition for interpleader. Davis v. Davis, 1895, 96 Ga. 136, 21 S.E. 1002. Interpleader 25

When a bill of interpleader is filed, there must be an affidavit of the complainant that there is no collusionbetween him and any of the parties. Tyus v. Rust, 1868, 37 Ga. 574, 95 Am.Dec. 365. Interpleader 25

11. Injunctions

Under Code, § 3234, providing that when one owes a debt to which more than one person lays claim, and theclaims are of such a character as to render it dangerous for the debtor to act, the debtor may apply to equity tocompel the claimants to interplead where, pending the adjustment of a claim against a city, the claimant notifiedthe city that one who previously represented him as attorney was no longer in his employ, and, on the allowanceof the claim, the attorney notified the city that he claimed a lien on the same for services, and that the claimantwas insolvent, the city was entitled to an injunction restraining the prosecution of a suit against it by theclaimant on the claim, and to a decree compelling the claimant and the attorney to interplead. City of Atlanta v.

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 15

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

McDaniel, 1895, 96 Ga. 190, 22 S.E. 896. Interpleader 22

Where, pending a suit by creditors of the holder of a certificate of deposit issued by a firm of bankers, anothersuit is brought against them by a present holder of the certificate, who took it from the former holder after thefirst suit was brought and a receiver appointed therein, the superior court of the county in which both suits arepending has jurisdiction to enjoin the plaintiff in the second suit, notwithstanding he is a nonresident of thecounty, pending the litigation of the rights of the parties under an order of interpleader. James v. Sams, 1892, 90Ga. 404, 17 S.E. 962. Interpleader 22

Where pending a suit by creditors of the holder of a certificate of deposit issued by a firm of bankers, anothersuit is brought against them by the present holder of the certificate, who took it from the former holder after thefirst suit was brought, and an order interpleading the claimants is granted, it is proper to issue an injunction re-straining the prosecution of the actions pending the termination of the interpleader. James v. Sams, 1892, 90 Ga.404, 17 S.E. 962. Interpleader 22

12. Unliquidated claims

Wounded police officer's claim to have set aside judgment in city's interpleader action directing distribution ofmoney recovered from person involved in shootout with police was not moot on ground that officer's claim wasunliquidated. Code, §§ 81A-160, 81A-160(d). Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of City of Carrollton, 1982, 249Ga. 173, 288 S.E.2d 565. Interpleader 8(1)

Fact that one's claim is unliquidated is not necessarily a bar to participation in interpleader. Johnson v. Mayor &City Council of City of Carrollton, 1982, 249 Ga. 173, 288 S.E.2d 565. Interpleader 8(1)

13. Timing of bill of interpleader

A bill to coerce interpleading between adverse claimants to a fund comes too late after one of the claimants hasrecovered judgment. Moore v. Hill, 1877, 59 Ga. 760. Interpleader 18

The time to file a bill of interpleader is before judgment for the fund has been rendered in favor of one of theclaimants against the stake-holder. Brown v. Wilson, 1876, 56 Ga. 534. Interpleader 18

When a bill of interpleader is filed by trustees to obtain the directions of a Court of Chancery, and a proper caseis made, it is too late for defendants after long acquiescence, to move to dismiss it, on the ground that it wasfiled too late. Cooper v. Jones, 1858, 24 Ga. 473. Interpleader 30

14. Verification of bill of interpleader

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5472, requiring petition for interpleader to be verified, affidavit to amendment to an-swer in nature of interpleader, stating merely that the facts therein were not omitted from the original answer, orset up in the amendment, for purpose of delay, but not stating that they were true, was not a sufficient verifica-

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 16

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

tion. Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. Folly Beach Corp., 1922, 154 Ga. 366, 114 S.E. 207. Interpleader 24

15. Necessity of hearing

Where claimant in interpleader proceeding filed unverified claim, made no appearance and offered no evidence,claim was properly dismissed for want of prosecution. Whatley v. Alto Corp., 1955, 211 Ga. 718, 88 S.E.2d 398.Interpleader 30

An order for interpleader should not be granted ex parte, but, only after due opportunity for hearing. Smith v.Horton, 1916, 144 Ga. 496, 87 S.E. 655. Interpleader 20

Where petition for injunction and interpleader is filed, the order for interpleader should only be granted after aproper case is made at the interlocutory hearing. Schwarz v. Monsees, 1914, 142 Ga. 734, 83 S.E. 670. Inter-pleader 31

After a decree that the defendants interplead, the complainant in the bill, if he seeks no further relief, is not en-titled to be heard in argument at all, much less to be heard in conclusion. Andrews v. Halliday, 1879, 63 Ga. 263. Interpleader 31

It is no error in a presiding judge to refuse to hear a motion to dismiss a bill of interpleader, on the ground thatsuch bill is not up for hearing. Cooper v. Jones, 1858, 24 Ga. 473. Interpleader 30

16. Relief awarded

Stakeholder's successful invocation of the interpleader procedure serves to discharge him from the threat of po-tential liability to the adverse claimants of the disputed funds. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-22. Gilbert v. Montlick & Asso-ciates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 21

The remedy for interpleader provided for in Civil Practice Act is in addition to and in no way supersedes or lim-its the remedy of equitable interpleader. Code, §§ 37-1503 et seq., 37-1505, 81A-101 et seq., 81A-122,81A-122(a, b). Stone v. Davis, 1978, 242 Ga. 17, 247 S.E.2d 756. Interpleader 16

Where there was no proof or admission that county's claim against insolvent estate of deceased sheriff for taxmoneys unaccounted for by sheriff was barred by limitations, county's claim was properly ordered paid fromfunds deposited in the registry of the court by interpleading administratrix. Code, § 3-709. Savannah Bank &Trust Co. v. Meldrim, 1943, 25 S.E.2d 567, 195 Ga. 765. Interpleader 32

Where county on behalf of the state had filed, in administratrix' interpleader suit, claim against insolvent estateof deceased sheriff for tax money collected and unaccounted for by sheriff, an award to county to be applied totaxes due the state was not improper because the state had made no appearance. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v.Meldrim, 1943, 25 S.E.2d 567, 195 Ga. 765. Interpleader 32

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 17

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Where insurer pays fund into court, and interpleads claimants, court may award fund on equitable principleswithout regard to technical defenses open to insurer under regulations made by it solely for its benefit. Dell v.Varnedoe, 1918, 148 Ga. 91, 95 S.E. 977. Interpleader 32

Allegations of a petition, praying for an injunction to restrain proceedings on application for appointment of re-ceiver and that receiver be restrained from selling bonds deposited by fidelity company as surety on sheriff'sbond, held not to make out a bill of interpleader, under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, but to furnish basis for an equit-able proceeding in which the rights of all parties could be litigated. Ben Hill County v. Massachusetts Bonding& Ins. Co., 1915, 144 Ga. 325, 87 S.E. 15. Interpleader 16

After an attorney at law collected money at the instance of one member of a partnership, he received notice fromeach of the partners not to pay it to the other, and one of the firm moved a rule against him in the F. superiorcourt to compel payment. It appeared that none of the parties lived in F. county, but one resided in C. and one inB. and one in G. Held, on an interpleader alleging such facts, the court should have permitted the attorney to paythe money to the partner with whom he had contracted, on such partner's giving bond, and dismissed the bill ofinterpleader, leaving the parties to litigate before the proper tribunal. Perkins v. Trippe, 1869, 40 Ga. 225. Inter-pleader 32

17. Service

Federal court in interpleader action sitting in Georgia properly quashed as void attempted service by publicationon Indian corporation in a third-party action which was in the nature of an action in personam. Code, Ga. §§81-204, 81-205, 81-207.1. James Talcott, Inc. v. Allahabad Bank, Limited, 1971, 444 F.2d 451, certiorari denied92 S.Ct. 280, 404 U.S. 940, 30 L.Ed.2d 253. Interpleader 20

18. Discovery

The rule that, where a discovery is sought, the answers thereto, in so far as responsive to the interrogatories, canbe overcome only by two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating circumstances, applies to bills of inter-pleader where one defendant seeks a discovery from another defendant. Perkins v. Morgan, 1899, 107 Ga. 835,33 S.E. 705. Interpleader 29

19. Jurisdiction

Although there was no valid process served upon Florida second defendant, in interpleader action brought bybank domiciled in Georgia against Florida guardian and second defendant, court could decide as to dispositionof funds held by bank without personally affecting second defendant. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 22, 28 U.S.C.A.Georgia Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sims, 1971, 321 F.Supp. 307. Interpleader 17

Use of interpleader provision of Civil Practice Act does not effect change of provisions of Constitution relatingto venue of civil cases, and venue in action where there is counterclaim, cross claim or third-party claim for in-terpleader is proper only in county of residence where one of claimants resides. Code, §§ 81A-101 et seq.,81A-122; Const.Art. 9, § 2, Pars. 1-6. Kelly v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 1981, 160 Ga.App. 405, 287

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 18

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

S.E.2d 343. Interpleader 17

Where one claimant to fund was resident of county in which action was originated, venue was proper in suchcounty following interpleader even though other claimant resided in another county. Code, §§ 81A-101 et seq.,81A-122; Const.Art. 9, § 2, Pars. 1-6. Kelly v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 1981, 160 Ga.App. 405, 287S.E.2d 343. Interpleader 17

Where injured parties, injured party's insurer and heirs of deceased passenger consented to the terms, conditionsand provisions of order allowing interpleader and attorney fees and costs, trial court had jurisdiction and did noterr in granting interpleader and in allowing expenses. Code, §§ 37-1503, 56-3405b(d)(1). Blaylock v. GeorgiaMut. Ins. Co., 1977, 239 Ga. 462, 238 S.E.2d 105. Interpleader 17; Interpleader 35

Where contractor which repaired fire damage to insureds' home brought suit in Chatham County Superior Courtagainst insureds and insurer asserting equitable lien against proceeds of policy, and insurer responded in natureof interpleader and was ordered to pay proceeds into registry of court, the Superior Court had jurisdiction eventhough insureds were residents of DeKalb County. Const. art. 6, § 14, par. 3. Williams v. Overstreet, 1973, 230Ga. 112, 195 S.E.2d 906. Interpleader 17

Interpleader is an equitable proceeding and must be brought in county of residence of one against whom sub-stantial equitable relief is prayed. Const. art. 6, § 14, par. 3. Gunby v. Harper, 1960, 114 S.E.2d 856, 216 Ga. 94.Interpleader 16; Venue 22(6)

Superior court of county of situs of land held without jurisdiction to enjoin sale under security deed and to re-quire resident grantee to set up facts by interpleader with respect to tax executions purchased by holder of priorsecurity deed, in absence of showing that grantee would be substantially affected by judgment. Code 1933, §3-202. Millen Hotel Co. v. Chastaine, 1936, 183 Ga. 172, 188 S.E. 4. Interpleader 17

Though a clear case for interpleader was not made, equity had jurisdiction to prevent a multiplicity of suits and aconsequent waste of funds in dispute. Fleming v. Blosser Printing Co., 1903, 118 Ga. 86, 44 S.E. 805. Inter-pleader 6

Where, pending a suit by creditors of the holder of a certificate of deposit issued by a firm of bankers, suit isbrought against them by the present holder of such certificate, who took it from the former holder after the firstsuit was brought and after a receiver therein had been appointed, the superior court of the county in which bothsuits are pending has jurisdiction, at the instance of the bankers, to order plaintiff in such second suit to be madea party defendant to the first suit, and litigate his claims to such deposit, though he is a nonresident of thecounty. James v. Sams, 1892, 90 Ga. 404, 17 S.E. 962. Interpleader 17

20. Parties

It was proper to dismiss former employer that was sued by former employee, as former holder of disputed funds

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 19

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

against which two law firms who represented employee had potentially adverse claims, upon deposit of funds in-to registry of court, as no further relief was sought from employer. O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-34(b), 9-11-22. Gilbert v.Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 19

Where adverse claims on a fund have in fact been interpleaded, it is proper to dismiss the holder of a disputedfund as a party to the action, assuming that no further relief against the holder is being sought or necessary.O.C.G.A. § 9-11-22. Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certioraridenied. Interpleader 19

If no direct personal liability is being sought and the only claims are to the funds that a party holds, the party'scapacity in the action is that of merely a stakeholder. Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App.535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 19

Where adverse claims on fund have in fact been interpleaded, it is proper to dismiss holder of disputed fund asparty to action, assuming that no further relief against holder is being sought or is necessary; under such circum-stances, mere stakeholder's successful invocation of interpleader procedure serves to discharge him from threatof potential liability to adverse claimants of disputed funds. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-22. Thompson v. Bank of South,1984, 172 Ga.App. 579, 323 S.E.2d 877. Interpleader 19

To extent that trial court's order found bank's interpleader action was authorized, bank was properly dismissed asparty, where no claims premised upon its existing personal liability were being asserted against bank, but bankwas not entitled to general release from any and all liability regarding certain accounts, where any claims predic-ated upon bank's existing personal liability to rightful claimant of accounts would not be based upon bank's ca-pacity as “mere stakeholder” of disputed account and authorization of its interpleader action would not resolvethose claims. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-22, 11-3-419. Thompson v. Bank of South, 1984, 172 Ga.App. 579, 323 S.E.2d877. Interpleader 19

In action for confirmation of foreclosure sale and to require creditors to interplead as to their claims to proceedsof sale, trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss creditor as party defendant, in view of fact that issues re-mained unresolved between such creditor and competing creditor which was not party to consent order. C & SLand, Transp. & Development Corp. v. Grubbs, 1977, 141 Ga.App. 393, 233 S.E.2d 486. Interpleader 19

Where money in the hands of a stakeholder has been assigned to several persons to an amount greater than thatin the stakeholder's hands, on interpleader not only the parties claiming by assignment, but creditors seeking tosubject the fund in garnishment, should be made parties. Western & A. Ry. Co. v. Union Inv. Co., 1907, 128 Ga.74, 57 S.E. 100. Interpleader 19

To a petition of interpleader by a debtor against his creditor and the latter's creditors, who claim specific liens onthe debtor's property as security for their demands, the creditors of the petitioner are necessary parties. Bell v.Gunn, 1894, 94 Ga. 642, 21 S.E. 899. Interpleader 19

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 20

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

21. Sufficiency of pleadings

If stakeholder knows all facts and questions of law are not intricate or debatable, petition for interpleader willnot lie; but it is not incumbent upon holder to decide at his peril close questions either of law or of fact to entitlehim to have parties in interest set up their claims for determination, though it is necessary that petition show atleast two persons having conflicting claims to fund in hand and that each is apparently well founded. Code, §37-1503. Gunby v. Harper, 1960, 114 S.E.2d 856, 216 Ga. 94; Mullins v. Autry, 1946, 200 Ga. 645, 38 S.E.2d390.

Before a stakeholder can call upon adverse claimants to funds in his hands to interplead he must satisfactorilyshow to court that their claims have such a foundation in law as will create a reasonable doubt as to his safety inundertaking to determine for himself to whom the fund belongs. Code, § 37-1503. Mullins v. Autry, 1946, 200Ga. 645, 38 S.E.2d 390; Franklin v. Southern Ry. Co., 1904, 119 Ga. 855, 47 S.E. 344.

Requirements of interpleader statute were not satisfied where one claim was only against the realty of severalplaintiffs, where other claims were against only money which was held by plaintiffs and which was owed to abankrupt subcontractor, and where still another claim was an in personam claim on a check against only one ofthe plaintiffs. Code, §§ 37-1503, 81A-122. Farris v. U. S., 1973, 230 Ga. 862, 199 S.E.2d 782. Interpleader 11

Where insurer did not hold any funds to which more than one person was making a claim and alleged no facts toshow that issue concerning one defendant's insurable interest could not be adjudicated as well in her actionagainst insurer as in interpleader action, no claim was stated for interpleader or injunction, and trial judge's recit-al in judgment dismissing complaint that case of another defendant against another insurer had proceeded tojudgment was not essential to the ruling made and reversal of judgment in that case would not authorize a recon-sideration of judgment dismissing interpleader complaint. Farmer's Co-op. Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 1972, 229 Ga. 105,189 S.E.2d 419. Interpleader 23

Interpleader petition of prime contractor holding retainages payable to subcontractor, to which retainages de-fendants asserted conflicting claims totaling more than retainages, stated claim upon which relief could be gran-ted even if one or more of the claims appeared lacking in merit. Code, §§ 37-1503, 81A-122, 81A-186. AlgernonBlair, Inc. v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of DeKalb, 1968, 224 Ga. 118, 160 S.E.2d 395. Interpleader 23

Claim of widow of grantor whose death had resulted in payment by insurer of amount past due on debt to bankstated cause of action for money judgment against grantee who had agreed to assume indebtedness, in inter-pleader action filed by bank, wherein widow and grantee asserted claims. Code, §§ 103-302, 103-501, 103-502.Betts v. Brown, 1964, 219 Ga. 782, 136 S.E.2d 365. Interpleader 26

Petition by person owing debt claimed by two parties sufficiently alleged cause of action for interpleader. Code,§ 37-1503. Adrian Lumber Co. v. Gillis, 1963, 219 Ga. 180, 132 S.E.2d 186. Interpleader 23

Vendors' petition was insufficient to state a cause of action for interpleader as to right to commission betweenbrokers allegedly making sale, and a broker who had been given an exclusive listing, where it was alleged ex-

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 21

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

clusive listing agreement had expired before the sale, as claim of broker who had exclusive listing, if valid,would have presented a question of double liability and not of double vexation for a single liability. Calhoun v.Lawrence, 1961, 217 Ga. 423, 122 S.E.2d 576. Interpleader 23

Petition alleging claims to proceeds of a life policy by insured's mother, as originally designated beneficiary, byinsured's wife on theory that a change of beneficiary to herself was accomplished, and claim of children of in-sured on basis of an instrument executed by wife and mother wherein each waived claim to the proceeds andstipulated that they be used to establish a trust fund for benefit of the children, stated a cause of action for inter-pleader. Code, § 37-1503. Kimbrell v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 1961, 217 Ga. 335, 122 S.E.2d 94. Interplead-er 23

In interpleader proceeding, each contestant occupied position of plaintiff as against other and should state hisclaim plainly, clearly and distinctly, and, as far as possible, take issue with the claims of the others. Gunby v.Harper, 1960, 114 S.E.2d 856, 216 Ga. 94. Interpleader 26

Owner of realty was not entitled to require two real estate brokers with whom the owner had separate contractsto sell property to interplead and set up their claims for one commission out of a fund held in part by one de-fendant growing out of the sale of the property by him where allegations of petition were insufficient to render itdoubtful or dangerous for owner to act and were insufficient to inform court of the nature, character and founda-tion of one broker's alleged claim so as to enable the court to determine whether interpleader was essential toowner's protection. Code, § 37-1503. Lilley v. Nixon, 1958, 214 Ga. 548, 105 S.E.2d 716. Interpleader 23

In interpleader proceedings in Superior Court by insurer against insured, finance company, and clerk of CivilCourt of Fulton County, petition alleging that insurer had issued to insured on automobile purchased by him apolicy containing loss-payable clause to insured and finance company, and that insured had filed suit in CivilCourt to recover $1,740 as principal, and damages, and attorney's fees, because of destruction of automobile byfire, and alleging that insured was indebted to finance company in sum of $1,629.36, and that finance companyhad demanded payment from insurer, was insufficient to show that insurer was entitled to interpleader. NationalAuto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 1958, 213 Ga. 806, 102 S.E.2d 1. Interpleader 23

Response, which was filed by claimant in interpleader action by building and loan association to require tempor-ary administrator of estate and the claimant against said estate to interplead and set up the respective claims tosavings account held by association, and which alleged that decedent had made gift of savings account toclaimant by certain acts even though decedent was physically unable to read or write, stated a cause of actionwhich raised questions for jury and was not subject to general demurrer of defendant administrator. Code, §§48-101, 48-201. Swann v. Morris, 1956, 212 Ga. 460, 93 S.E.2d 673. Interpleader 26

Petition to require original beneficiary and purported substitute beneficiary to interplead and set up their respect-ive claims to proceeds of life policy was insufficient. Code, § 37-1503. Lowery v. Independent Life & Acc. Ins.Co., 1953, 209 Ga. 753, 76 S.E.2d 5. Interpleader 23

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 22

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Insurer seeking to require original beneficiary, purported substitute beneficiary, and assignee of purported sub-stitute beneficiary to interplead and set up their respective claims to life policy proceeds could not be required toallege when and in what manner assignment had been made. Code, § 37-1503. Lowery v. Independent Life &Acc. Ins. Co., 1953, 209 Ga. 753, 76 S.E.2d 5. Interpleader 23

Petition for interpleader alleging that proceeds of life policy payable to executor or administrator of insured, orto relative of insured incurring burial expenses, were claimed by defendant executor of estate of insured and byanother defendant, but failing to allege that such other defendant was a relative of insured or incurred burial ex-penses, or to make other allegations as to nature, character or foundation of claim to money by such other de-fendant, so as to enable court to determine whether claim was well-founded and whether interpleader was essen-tial to plaintiff's protection, was demurrable. Code, § 37-1503. Reed v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1950, 206Ga. 604, 58 S.E.2d 183. Interpleader 23

A petition by bank holding large sum of money belonging to the state to require interpleader between lieutenantgovernor who claimed to be governor upon resignation of former governor, and person elected by General As-sembly upon death of candidate who received majority in election, was not demurrable. Thompson v. Talmadge,1947, 201 Ga. 867, 41 S.E.2d 883. Interpleader 23

Petition alleging that decedent had left with petitioner a letter instructing him to turn money that decedent hadon deposit with petitioner over to a specified person after his death, that the specified person claimed the moneyas a gift and had notified petitioner to pay it to no one else, that the administratrix had claimed the fund for ad-ministration, and that petitioner held it in trust as a stakeholder and could not safely pay it to either party showedconflicting claims of such doubt as to render “interpleader” proper. Code, § 37-1503. Cannon v. Williams, 1942,194 Ga. 808, 22 S.E.2d 838. Interpleader 23

Before one occupying the situation of a stakeholder can call upon adverse claimants of fund in his hands to in-terplead, he must satisfactorily show that their claims have such a foundation in law as will create a reasonabledoubt as to his safety in undertaking to determine for himself to whom the fund belongs. Code 1933, § 37-1503.Smith v. Folsom, 1940, 190 Ga. 460, 9 S.E.2d 824. Interpleader 8(2)

Where administrator instituted interpleader proceeding to settle issue between attorney and client as to disposi-tion of client's interest in the estate half of which was claimed by attorney under employment contract, responseof client, setting forth right as heir at law to distributive share in the estate and repudiating power of attorneyand contract of attorney's employment on ground of fraud, was not subject to general demurrer. Code 1933, §20-906. Cobb v. Daughtry, 1939, 188 Ga. 70, 2 S.E.2d 638. Interpleader 26

Conflicting claims of at least two persons, apparently well founded, to fund in hands of person having no in-terest in or claim thereon, and who, as between conflicting claimants, is perfectly indifferent are essential tomaintenance of petition for interpleader. Code 1933, § 37-1503. Millen Hotel Co. v. Chastaine, 1936, 183 Ga.172, 188 S.E. 4. Interpleader 6

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 23

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Executor's petition seeking adjudication of claims to property devised by executor's testator held not sustainableas proceeding in nature of interpleader, since not seeking affirmative equitable relief as to any interest claimedby petitioner. Phillips v. Kelly, 1932, 176 Ga. 111, 167 S.E. 281. Interpleader 23

Petition charging that advances were made as security on pre-existing debt does not raise question whether con-veyances were void for want of new consideration. Hawkes v. Mobley, 1932, 174 Ga. 481, 163 S.E. 494. Inter-pleader 23

Answer admitting signing blank assignment of policy by claiming signatures and conditions of assignment werechanged held insufficient as plea of forgery. Bonner v. Merchants' Bank of McRae, 1929, 168 Ga. 782, 149 S.E.133. Interpleader 26

In petition for interpleader, the conflicting claims must be set forth so as to inform court of their nature, charac-ter, and foundation to the extent of enabling court to determine whether or not interpleader is essential toplaintiff's protection. Knight v. Jackson, 1923, 156 Ga. 165, 118 S.E. 661. Interpleader 23

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5472, an answer in the nature of a petition for interpleader was properly stricken,whether neither therein nor in the affidavit attached thereto was there any statement negativing noncollusion.Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. Folly Beach Corp., 1922, 154 Ga. 366, 114 S.E. 207. Interpleader 24; Inter-pleader 25

Answer in nature of interpleader by acceptor of bill of exchange sued by holder held insufficient because itdenied the holder's title to the paper or that defendant owed the holder anything. Washington Loan & BankingCo. v. Folly Beach Corp., 1922, 154 Ga. 366, 114 S.E. 207. Interpleader 24

Under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, allegations of petition filed by administrators as to their readiness to distributeestate and as to conflicting claims were sufficient as against general demurrer to sustain petition and authorizean order to interplead. Fay v. Burton, 1918, 147 Ga. 648, 95 S.E. 224. Interpleader 23

On petition by trustee, holding fund for distribution, requiring claimants to interplead, pleadings of codefendantsheld to set up claim to income from fund. Estill v. Estill, 1917, 147 Ga. 358, 94 S.E. 304. Interpleader 26

On petition by trustee, holding fund for distribution, to require claimants to interplead, where claimants had filedtimely answer to petition, their amendments to answer were timely. Estill v. Estill, 1917, 147 Ga. 358, 94 S.E.304. Interpleader 26

On petition by trustee, holding fund for distribution, to require claimants to interplead where their answer admit-ted allegations of petition, there was sufficient basis to amend by. Estill v. Estill, 1917, 147 Ga. 358, 94 S.E. 304. Interpleader 26

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 24

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

While strict bill of interpleader involves two suits, petition in nature of bill of interpleader does not necessarilyinvolve two sets of pleadings, though better practice might be to require them. Estill v. Estill, 1917, 147 Ga. 358,94 S.E. 304. Interpleader 1

Where plaintiff's petition assumed that she could not compel purchaser to pay entire purchase price until ques-tion of rights of judgment creditors of her husband, who had shortly before judgment conveyed to her undividedone-half interest therein, was determined, it states no cause of action against purchaser; plaintiff having no rightof action against judgment creditors. Price v. Aldred, 1917, 147 Ga. 258, 93 S.E. 403. Interpleader 23

Where rent notes were transferred by lessor to bank and premises were subsequently sold by lessor's trustee inbankruptcy, tenant's petition for interpleader under Civ.Code 1910, § 5471, against bank and purchaser ofpremises to determine which was entitled to rent was not subject to demurrer on ground that claims were notidentical. Fourth Nat. Bank of Macon v. J.R. & S.E. Odom, 1917, 147 Ga. 170, 93 S.E. 91. Interpleader 23

Where an equitable petition was filed and an order made authorizing plaintiff to pay into the court the fund incontroversy and be discharged and requiring defendants to interplead, failure of one defendant to file an answeruntil after call of the docket at the appearance term and entry of default as to him did not put him in default as tohis codefendant with whom he was ordered to interplead where no time limit had been fixed in the order. Smithv. Horton, 1916, 144 Ga. 496, 87 S.E. 655. Interpleader 26

Where the petition alleged that plaintiff had sent circulars to certain real estate firms, calling attention to landwhich he had for sale, asking them to undertake the sale at a stated price, that a sale was made, and that each oftwo of certain defendants claimed to have made the sale, that one of them had instituted suit for commission,and that the other threatened to sue, it was sufficient to show that plaintiff was a mere stakeholder, entitled to aninterpleader. Little & Green v. Davis, 1913, 140 Ga. 212, 78 S.E. 842. Interpleader 23

A bill in the nature of a “bill of interpleader” is one where complainant seeks relief of an equitable nature con-cerning the fund or subject-matter in the suit, in addition to the interpleader of conflicting claimants, and com-plainant is not required, as in strict interpleader, to be an indifferent stakeholder without interest in the subject-matter; but the facts on which he relies must entitle him to equitable rather than legal relief, and he cannot, un-der the guise of a bill in equity, litigate a purely legal claim. McKinney v. Daniels, 1910, 135 Ga. 157, 68 S.E.1095. Interpleader 16

When the defendants in a bill are entering on the final trial of their case under a decree requiring them to inter-plead, it is not competent for one of them to vary the pleadings by amendment so as to raise questions with thecomplainant in the bill touching the amount of the fund, waste, etc. Andrews v. Halliday, 1879, 63 Ga. 263. In-terpleader 23

D. delivered tobacco to M. for safe-keeping. H. afterwards presented an order from D. for the tobacco, and re-quested M. to take charge of the tobacco and sell it for him, which M. agreed to do. M. afterwards sold the to-bacco on account of H., but did not pay over the proceeds; H. being indebted to him on certain partnership trans-

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 25

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

actions. Before the tobacco was sold, D. verbally revoked his order to deliver to H., and after the sale he revokedthe order in writing. H. having brought, and D. having threatened to bring suit against M. to recover the value ofthe tobacco, the latter filed a bill of interpleader. Held, that M. did not make out such a case as entitled him tomaintain a bill of interpleader, on the ground that he was an innocent stakeholder. Hatfield v. McWhorter, 1869,40 Ga. 269. Interpleader 11

22. Questions for court

Whether plaintiff is entitled to interplead is a decision for court. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1335, 1397, 2361. SavannahBank & Trust Co. of Savannah v. Block, 1959, 175 F.Supp. 798. Interpleader 31

When court decides that plaintiff is entitled to interplead, it should discharge plaintiff and leave claimants offund to try out their competitive claims before jury; and particularly is this true where neither set of contestingclaimants asks for jury trial of issue of whether plaintiff is entitled to interplead. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1335, 1397,2361. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah v. Block, 1959, 175 F.Supp. 798. Interpleader 31

In interpleader suit, where decree was granted allowing petitioner to pay the fund in controversy into registry ofthe court and ordering defendants to set up their respective claims, verdict that the fund “be applied to the pay-ment of said sums pro rata” was sufficient, without necessity of dealing with petitioner's right to maintain thepetition for interpleader or of returning verdict against other parties. Smith v. Folsom, 1940, 190 Ga. 460, 9S.E.2d 824. Interpleader 31

23. Questions for jury

Predecessor trustee and broker were asserting separate and noncompeting claims and, therefore, successor trust-ee was not entitled to summary judgment on its interpleader action in which it conceded it had no claim to$60,000 to which predecessor trustee was entitled under terms of resignation agreement; predecessor trusteeclaimed compensation for its actions in marketing and developing trust property, while broker sought fee forfinding ready, willing, and able purchaser for property. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-22, 23-3-90. Trust Co. Bank v. Cit-izens & Southern Trust Co., 1990, 260 Ga. 124, 390 S.E.2d 589. Interpleader 33

In interpleader to determine rights, as between administratrix of donor causa mortis and the alleged donee, tomoney held by petitioner, evidence was insufficient to take to jury issue whether there was a deficiency of al-leged donor's assets or whether it would be necessary to use any portion of the gift to pay donor's debts so as toentitle administratrix to require the donee to account. Code, §§ 37-1503, 48-101 to 48-103, 48-201. Cannon v.Williams, 1942, 194 Ga. 808, 22 S.E.2d 838. Interpleader 31

24. Sufficiency of evidence

Evidence that bank held properly recorded deed to secure debt on property which was second in priority to fore-closing mortgagee's interest and that mortgagor was indebted to bank in sum of $25,645.46 on promissory notesecured by deed to secure debt was sufficient to justify award of excess proceeds from foreclosure sale to bankin interpleader action brought by foreclosing mortgagee. McHaffie v. Decatur Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n,

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 26

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

1994, 214 Ga.App. 368, 448 S.E.2d 36. Interpleader 29

Evidence that union practice was to pay death benefit fund to next of kin of deceased worker in absence of adesignated beneficiary supported verdict for guardian of deceased worker's son as against worker's mother. Rus-sell v. Ware, 1964, 220 Ga. 387, 139 S.E.2d 310. Interpleader 29

In action to recover for sand sold under contract wherein claimants brought in by interpleader claimed proceedsof sale, contending that the sand had been removed from their property, evidence was sufficient to support ver-dict for such claimants. Edmiston v. Whitney Land Co., 1944, 198 Ga. 546, 32 S.E.2d 259. Interpleader 29

Claim by one defendant to money in plaintiff's hands under gift invalid for want of delivery, and trust invalid be-cause resting in parol, held insufficient to support suit for interpleader. Knight v. Jackson, 1923, 156 Ga. 165,118 S.E. 661. Interpleader 8(1)

In tenants' interpleader proceeding against execution plaintiff and purchaser of leased land at execution sale todetermine which defendant was entitled to part of cotton crop as rent, the jury's verdict for purchaser was sup-ported by the evidence. Frost v. Render, 1880, 65 Ga. 15. Interpleader 29

25. Costs

To extent that propriety of foreclosure was made issue in security deed holder's counsel's interpleader action todetermine proper disbursement of surplus funds from foreclosure sale, security deed holder was indispensibleparty, and, in absence of holder, trial court was limited to determining appropriate claimant to surplus and ex-penses and fees incurred in bringing interpleader action. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-19, 23-3-90. McCalla, Raymer,Padrick, Nichols & Clark, L.L.C. v. C.I.T. Financial Services, Inc., 1998, 235 Ga.App. 95, 508 S.E.2d 471. In-terpleader 39

26. Attorney fees

In interpleader action initiated by administrator of estate of deceased driver, trial court properly taxed attorneyfees and costs incurred by administrator against insurer and in favor of insured, the prevailing party, where courthad already allowed administrator to recover her costs from fund deposited in court. O.C.G.A. § 23-3-90. Chero-kee Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 1992, 204 Ga.App. 152, 418 S.E.2d 616, certiorari denied. Interpleader 35

27. Review

Issue of whether former employer had established right to be reimbursed for attorney fees associated with bring-ing interpleader action, after two law firms that represented former employee in action against employer servedit with attorney liens, was not ripe for appeal, in light of fact that trial court had not determined whether employ-ee or law firm had to pay one-half of attorney fees and costs. Gilbert v. Montlick & Associates, P.C., 2001, 248Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 34

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 27

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Enumeration of error was deemed abandoned on appeal of order directing that upon former employer's depositinto court registry two payments due to former employee, employer would be dismissed with prejudice from in-terpleader action brought after two law firms served attorney liens on employer, when employee did not refer-ence record or support claim of error by any citation to authority or reasoned argument. Gilbert v. Montlick &Associates, P.C., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 535, 546 S.E.2d 895, certiorari denied. Interpleader 34

After trial court entered Court of Appeals' remittitur as judgment of trial court, thereby ending bank's interplead-er action to determine who had authority over church's accounts, there was no justiciable issue ripe for consider-ation, and thus trial court improperly retained jurisdiction to consider propriety of church executive board's suc-cessive attempts to remove bishop, where pleadings were not amended to assert any other claims, and there wasno allegation that bishop or his successor attempted to write any other checks in name of church. First BornChurch of Living God, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., 2001, 248 Ga.App. 500, 546 S.E.2d 1, reconsiderationdenied , certiorari denied. Interpleader 34

Order which held that interpleader was viable remedy and dismissed the instigating stakeholder was not directlyappealable absent clear direction by trial court of entry of final judgment. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-54(b). Custom One-Hour Photo of Georgia, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 1986, 179 Ga.App. 70, 345 S.E.2d 147. Interpleader34

In action for confirmation of foreclosure sale and to require creditors to interplead as to their claims to proceedsof sale, trial court did not err in ordering funds transferred to clerk of court in county in which suit betweencompeting creditors was pending so that adjudication of parties' interests could be made in such pending suit.Code, §§ 37-1501, 37-1503, 37-1505, 81A-101, 81A-118(a), 81A-120(a), 81A-122. C & S Land, Transp. & De-velopment Corp. v. Grubbs, 1977, 141 Ga.App. 393, 233 S.E.2d 486. Interpleader 21

In action for confirmation of foreclosure sale and to require creditors to interplead as to their claims to proceedsof sale, trial court did not err in overruling creditor's motion to pay excess funds and interest into registry ofcourt, in view of fact that all funds required by consent order to which movant was not a party had been previ-ously deposited with court. C & S Land, Transp. & Development Corp. v. Grubbs, 1977, 141 Ga.App. 393, 233S.E.2d 486. Interpleader 21

Where contractor which had repaired fire damage to insureds' home sued insureds and insurer asserting equit-able lien against policy proceeds and insurer responded in nature of interpleader, trial court properly ordered in-surer to pay proceeds into registry of court. Code, §§ 37-1503, 81A-122. Williams v. Overstreet, 1973, 230 Ga.112, 195 S.E.2d 906. Interpleader 21

In action to enjoin insurer and administrator of insured's estate from paying out proceeds of policy, judgmentmaking certain claimants parties defendant at request of insurer was not error where it was alleged and not dis-puted that estate was insolvent, that claims occurring out of common disaster were in excess of policy limits andthat the claimants were seeking in another court to collect entire amount of proceeds from insurer. Cannon v.Tant, 1972, 229 Ga. 771, 195 S.E.2d 15. Interpleader 14

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 28

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Where bank which held funds deposited in account of plaintiff administrator's decedent, and there was no ques-tion of law which was reasonably debatable when applied to facts alleged in administrator's action to recoversuch money, trial court properly denied petition of bank for interpleader of persons other than administrator whoclaimed the funds. Code, § 37-1503. Citizens Bank of Forsyth v. Middlebrooks, 1952, 209 Ga. 330, 72 S.E.2d298. Interpleader 8(2)

Decree to interplead is interlocutory and subject to revision, and it may, before final decree, be reviewed as hav-ing been improvidently and prematurely passed, and grant or refusal of order to interplead being a matter of ju-dicial discretion, vacation of such order upon application and cause shown is equally within court's discretion,and whether such order is vacated for irregularity or because improvidently granted or upon new facts beingshown is immaterial. Code, § 37-1503. Mullins v. Autry, 1946, 200 Ga. 645, 38 S.E.2d 390. Interpleader 33

Where original petition allegedly did not show cause for interpleader because only one of alleged claims waswell founded, and after decree allowing plaintiff to interplead one of claimants during term filed a motion to va-cate the decree and petitioner filed an amendment which showed an apparent foundation for claim alleged by themotion to have been lacking in that respect, court after hearing pursuant to rule nisi properly overruled the mo-tion to vacate since decree was interlocutory. Code, § 37-1503. Mullins v. Autry, 1946, 200 Ga. 645, 38 S.E.2d390. Interpleader 33

Where there could be no overplus available to unsecured creditors of insolvent deceased sheriff, decree award-ing fund in court registry to county for payment of claims against sheriff for taxes collected and unaccounted forby him was not too uncertain in not awarding the particular amounts to be paid to the state, board of education,and county, and in not stating the rate of interest and when it was to begin. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v.Meldrim, 1943, 25 S.E.2d 567, 195 Ga. 765. Interpleader 33

In interpleader to determine rights, as between the administratrix of an alleged donor causa mortis and the al-leged donee, to money held by petitioner, where administratrix pleaded that title had remained in the decedentdonor and had passed to her because there was no valid gift and no will, trial court erred in directing verdict foradministratrix. Code, §§ 37-1503, 48-101, to 48-103, 48-201. Cannon v. Williams, 1942, 194 Ga. 808, 22 S.E.2d838. Interpleader 31

In interpleader suit by Atlanta Police Relief Association against a member's first and second wives to determineright to proceeds of member's benefit certificate, where first wife alleged that member agreed to maintain certi-ficate in force for her benefit in consideration of her caring for herself and minor children and that she had fullyperformed contract, a subsequent allegation that first wife obtained decree of divorce and judgment againstmember for permanent alimony and that at time of member's death he had not paid all alimony due was to beconstrued as contradictory to allegation that first wife had fully performed contract with member, and hencefund was properly awarded to second wife. Freeman v. Atlanta Police Relief Ass'n, 1940, 191 Ga. 200, 12S.E.2d 616. Interpleader 27

Where petition for interpleader did not disclose any right or cause of action in one of interpleaded defendants,dismissal of petition on general demurrer was not error as to such defendant. Alston v. McGonigal, 1934, 179

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 29

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Ga. 617, 176 S.E. 632. Interpleader 23

Judgment in interpleader ordering payment of policy to assignee on executing bond for repayment if judgment isreversed held proper. Civ.Code 1910, § 5471. Bonner v. Merchants' Bank of McRae, 1929, 168 Ga. 782, 149S.E. 133. Interpleader 33

Where trustee, holding fund for distribution, petitioned for order requiring claimants to interplead, and eachclaimant answered and raised issues between codefendants, it was not error to refuse to direct verdict for twoclaimants on ground that other defendants had not claimed fund, and claimants' answers were verified and to betaken as true. Estill v. Estill, 1917, 147 Ga. 358, 94 S.E. 304. Interpleader 31

Where a carrier having cotton in its possession filed interpleader to determine right to possession as between theconsignees, the initial carrier, and certain individuals, who were asserting title in trover suits, it was improper,on preliminary hearing for an injunction, etc., to render final judgment requiring the petitioner to deliver the cot-ton and to pay costs of the proceedings. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Wooten, 1913, 139 Ga. 489, 77 S.E. 572.Interpleader 33

In an action against a bank to recover on certificates of deposit, the court properly refused to order plaintiff tointerplead with a stranger to the record whom defendant alleged to be the holder of the certificates; there beingno appropriate pleadings under which the alleged holder could be made a party, and no prayer that he be madesuch. Jones v. Bank of Lula, 1911, 135 Ga. 680, 70 S.E. 640. Interpleader 23

Where a railway company bases its prayer for interpleader solely on the ground that it ought not to be compelledto determine, at its peril, whether the wages of a brakeman could be reached by garnishment at the suit of hiscreditors, an interpleader was improperly allowed; the Supreme Court of the state having frequently decided thatthe wages could not be reached, so that the railroad company could successfully defeat the attempt of the credit-ors of the brakeman to subject the funds in its hands to their demands. Franklin v. Southern Ry. Co., 1904, 119Ga. 855, 47 S.E. 344. Interpleader 8(2)

The plaintiff in an equitable petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader must allege that he is in possessionand control of the property, and when on the petition's face it is shown that he is neither in possession nor con-trol, the petition is obnoxious to general demurrer. Steed v. Savage, 1902, 115 Ga. 97, 41 S.E. 272. Interpleader27

When an order of dismissal of levy was granted, it was not error for the court to refuse to issue an order, on theground of the insolvency of claimant, requiring the securities on the claimant's bond, in whose possession theproperty was, to hold the same as receivers until the final judgment of the court in the premises, or requiringthem to retain the possession until a supersedeas could be sued out. Hutchinson & Bro. v. Jackson, 1874, 53 Ga.56. Interpleader 31

Where the complainant's bill cannot be maintained as a bill of interpleader, yet, as there are other grounds for

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 30

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

equitable relief stated, in regard to certain claims, in the adjustment of which a Court of Equity can afford moreadequate relief than a Court of law, the general demurrer to the whole bill for want of equity was properly over-ruled by the Court below. Hatfield v. McWhorter, 1869, 40 Ga. 269. Interpleader 27

Complainants in a bill of interpleader may appeal, if their individual rights are affected by the decree; and thatone of the parties called on by said bill to litigate their rights does not appeal, does not impair or destroy theright of appeal of the complainants in the bill of interpleader. Cooper v. Jones, 1858, 24 Ga. 473. Interpleader 34

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90, GA ST § 23-3-90

Current through the 2009 Regular Session.

(C) 2009 Thomson Reuters.

END OF DOCUMENT

Ga. Code Ann., § 23-3-90 Page 31

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.