Blumenthal v. Monumental Security Storage, Inc.

²⁹⁹ Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In November, 1972, Mrs. Rose S. Blumenthal brought suit in detinue in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against Monumental Security Storage, Inc. (Monumental), claiming damages of $200,000.00 for what she regarded as the wrongful detention of household goods which she had placed in storage, and asking a return of the goods. Monumental answered, alleging that Sydney C. Blumenthal, Jr., husband of Mrs. Blumenthal, also claimed ownership of the goods, and countered with a bill of interpleader, seeking an order requiring Mr. and Mrs. Blumenthal to interplead in the matter, in order that the conflicting claims of ownership could be resolved. From an order transferring the interpleader action to a court of equity for trial, denying Mrs. Blumenthal’s motion to dismiss the bill, discharging Monumental from further liability, and enjoining further action against Monumental by the Blumenthals, Mrs. Blumenthal has appealed.

The procedural framework within which this controversy was considered is derived from the Maryland Rules of Procedure and from two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Maryland Rule BU 70 provides in part: “a. Conditions. “Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff avers that he is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. “b.

Counterclaim or Cross-Claim. “A defendant exposed to similar liability may ³⁰⁰ obtain such interpleader by way of counterclaim or cross-claim pursuant to Rule 314 (Counter-claim and Cross-Claim).” Rule BU 72 b controls the scope of a decree which may be entered in an interpleader action: “b. Scope. “Upon the passage of a decree requiring the defendants to interplead, the court shall designate one or more of the parties as plaintiffs and one or more of them as defendants. The decree shall also require the original plaintiff to pay into court the property which is made the subject of the interpleader, or so much thereof as may then be due. In addition, the court may — “(1) Order the discharge of the original plaintiff from further liability and the payment to him of his costs and a reasonable counsel fee out of the fund if the plaintiffs capacity in bringing the action was that of an impartial stakeholder; “(2) Enjoin the bringing or prosecuting of other actions against the original plaintiff, with or without bond notwithstanding the provisions of Rule BB75 (Injunction — Bond); and “(3) If a contest exists only with respect to a portion of the property paid into court, order the immediate payment of the remainder thereof to the party to whom it is admittedly payable.” UCC § 7-403, Maryland Code (1957, 1964 Repl.

Vol.) Art. 95B, § 7-403, which deals with the obligation of a warehouseman to deliver, provides in part: “(1) The bailee must deliver the goods to a person entitled under the document who complies with subsections (2) [satisfaction of bailee’s lien] and (3) [cancellation of or notation of partial delivery on any outstanding negotiable document], unless and ³⁰¹ to the extent that the bailee establishes any of the following: “(g) Any other lawful excuse.” UOC § 7-603, Code (1957, 1964 Repl. Vol.) Art. 95B, § 7-603 makes provision for conflicting claims: “If more than one person claims title or possession of the goods, the bailee is excused from delivering until he has had a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of the adverse claims or to bring an action to compel all claimants to interplead and may compel such interpleader, either in defending an action for non-delivery of the goods, or by