Emerick v. New York Life Insurance

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of interpleader alleges that a policy of insurance was issued by the complainant on the life of William Harper in favor of his wife, that it was afterwards changed and made payable to his legal representatives, and that the proceeds of this policy are now claimed by his executor and by Mrs. Harper, the widow. The complainant makes no claim to said proceeds, but is ready and willing to pay the same, but does not know to which of the claimants they ought to be paid, and the bill is therefore filed simply for its own protection. ³⁵⁴ The answer of Mrs. Harper states that on the 7th of June, 1851, the original policy No. 7097 was issued in her favor,—that in 1868, in fraud of her rights, her husband by means wholly unknown to her induced the Company to retire or otherwise dispose of the then existing policy, and to re-issue it in the favor of her husband, the re-issued policy bearing the same No 7097, and being in all respects, except as mentioned, a continuation and affirmation of the original policy, she admits the facts stated in the bill of interpleader, claims the funds in the hands of the Company, and prays that the opposing claimant may be required to interplead with her in the suit. The executor of Harper in his answer avers there is nothing on the face of the policy to show or indicate that it was ever issued in favor of the wife, or to suggest it was issued as a renewal or substitution of a previous policy in her favor, calls for full proof, and says that the policy issued in 1868 and payable to Harper’s legal representatives is a valid contract which the company has no right to repudiate or require him to interplead.

It is true that the mere fact of a double claim is not in all cases and under all circumstances the test of the right to file a hill 'of interpleader. The possession of the fund or property in dispute may be of such a character, as for instance, the relafion of principal and agent; or one by his own conduct may put himself in such a position as to preclude his right to dispute the title of another, or