Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute.
The money or other property in controversy is called the res (a Latin word meaning object or thing).
Statutory modifications to the procedure, which vary by jurisdiction, sometimes allow the stakeholder to retain the res pending final disposition of the case.
Interpleader had its origins as a civil procedure at common law, which was later adopted and expanded by the Court of Chancery in its equitable jurisprudence.
The common law procedure became obsolete over time and fell into disuse, but it remained active in the courts of equity.
[9] In cases where a person was subject to multiple claims, the applicant had to show that he: As a result of the coming into force of Part 3 and Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007[15] on 6 April 2014,[16] Order 17 and Order 33 were replaced by the new Parts 83-86 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
[17] This replaced the interpleader proceedings previously governed by the court rules by the procedure of "enforcement by taking control of goods" under newly passed regulations.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in New York Life v. Dunlevy 241 U.S. 518, that for a claimant to be bound by an interpleader that party must be served process in a way that obtains personal jurisdiction.
Bank 260 U.S. 235 sustained that a defensive interpeader in an action at law in federal court could be taken under Judicial Code section 274b added by 38 Stat.
The Federal Interpleader Act of 1917 allowed an insurance company, or fraternal benefit society subject to multiple claims on the same policy to file a suit in equity by a bill of interpleader in United States district courts and providing nationwide service of process.
416 approved May 8, 1926, which added to those who can bring suit casualty company and surety company, empowered the court to enjoin claimant from proceeding in any state or other federal court on the same liability, adding provisions as to the proper venue for the interpleader in certain cases but required that there must be actual claims by eliminating the words "may claim" that were in the 1917 act.
1096, approved Jan. 20, 1936, drafted by Zechariah Chafee which codified it in as United States Judicial Code §41(26), and established the modern statutory interpleader allowing suit to be brought by any person, firm, corporation, association or society having custody of money or property or insurance policy or instrument valued at $500 or more which there are two or more adverse claimant who are citizens of different states, whether or not the claims have common origins, identical, adverse or independent of each other, and allowed it to be an equitable defense in actions at law, Judicial Code §274b.
Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.
Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead.
An action under those statutes must be conducted under these rules.The Uniform Commercial Code §7-603 adopted in all 50 of the states of the United States provides that a bailee may bring an interpleader as an original action or as a defense to a suit for nondelivery when more than one person claims title to or possession of the goods under document of title (warehouse receipt or bill of lading).