Opinion
19479.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 11, 1956.
DECIDED OCTOBER 10, 1956. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 29, 1956.
Interpleader. Before Judge Foster. Haralson Superior Court. June 20, 1956.
Russell O. Clay, Thomas B. Murphy, James R. Murphy, for plaintiff in error. Craighead Dwyer, D. B. Howe, Harold L. Murphy, Robert A. Edwards, contra.
"Whenever a person shall be possessed of property or funds, or owe a debt or duty, to which more than one person shall lay claim of such a character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for the holder to act, he may apply to equity to compel the claimants to interplead." Code § 37-1503. In this case, the sufficiency of the petition to allege a proper reason for compelling the two claimants to interplead and establish their respective claims to the funds in question is not challenged by demurrer or otherwise. It shows that the defendant is due the beneficiary of two life-insurance policies purchased by Harold I. Sanders, now deceased, the undisputed amount of $6,000; that two persons claim and have made demands on it for the payment of such proceeds, each claiming to be the legal beneficiary of the policies; and that their conflicting claims are of such a character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for it to act. Hence, the judgment permitting the defendant to pay the full amount due on the policies into the registry of the court and then be discharged from further liability is not erroneous. See Cannon v. Williams, 194 Ga. 808 ( 22 S.E.2d 838).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., not participating.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 11, 1956 — DECIDED OCTOBER 10, 1956 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 29, 1956.
Mrs. Grace Sanders sued Progressive Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of Haralson County for $6,000. Her petition in substance alleges: The defendant issued to her son, Harold I. Sanders, two policies of life insurance for an amount of $6,000 in case of his accidental death; that she is the beneficiary of the policies; that the insured was accidentally killed on February 6, 1956; and that she had made a demand on the defendant for payment of the amount due on the policies. The defendant answered the petition and also filed a petition for interpleader, alleging in substance as follows: The two policies issued to Harold I. Sanders were of full force and effect when he was accidentally killed on February 6, 1956, and it is due the beneficiary of the policies the full amount of $6,000, which it is ready and willing to pay. Both the plaintiff, as mother of the insured, and Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders, as widow of the insured, had made a demand on it for payment of the amount due on the policies, each contending that she was, at the time of the insured's death, the designated beneficiary in both of the policies. When the policies were issued, Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders, as wife of the insured, was named in each of them as the beneficiary, but under their terms the insured had the right to change the beneficiary and on January 9, 1956, the insured requested the insurer's agent, Mr. Ralph M. Moore, to furnish him with change-of-beneficiary forms. Such forms were furnished him, he executed them and named Mrs. Grace Sanders, his mother, as beneficiary in each of the policies, and his signature on the forms was witnessed by the insurer's agent. The insured was at that time advised by the agent that it would be necessary, in order to comply with the provisions of the policies and the requirements of the insurer, for him to surrender the original policies so that they could be forwarded to the insurer's home office for necessary endorsement of a change in beneficiary. The insured stated that they were at his home, and that he would deliver them to the insurer's agent in the near future so that a change of beneficiary could be completed. The policies were never delivered to the insurer's agent Moore by the insured, and consequently were never endorsed showing a change of beneficiary as required by the policies; but after the insured's death and on February 18, 1956, the applications for a change in beneficiary and the original policies were mailed to the home office of the insurer by O. S. Thompson, the insurer's staff manager, and received there on February 20, 1956; but there is no allegation as to when or from whom Thompson received the applications for a change in beneficiary and the original policies. It does not know which of the two claimants is the legal beneficiary of the policies, and it is therefore in doubt as to whom payment should be made. The conflicting claims each have some merit and are of such a nature as to render it doubtful or dangerous for it to act. It is not in collusion with either of the claimants, but entirely indifferent as to which receives the proceeds of the policies. It prayed that the court take equitable jurisdiction of the case and grant its bill of interpleader; that the claimant, Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders, be made a party to the cause; that it be authorized to pay the amount due on the policies into the registry of the court, and on doing so be discharged from any further liability; and that the two claimants be required to show cause why its prayers should not be granted. The sufficiency of the petition to require the claimants to interplead is not challenged by demurrer or otherwise. Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders was made a party to the cause on June 6, 1956, and there is no exception to that order. On June 20, 1956, Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders filed an answer in which she averred that she was designated as the beneficiary in the two policies when they were purchased by her husband; that he did not change the beneficiary therein; that the purported applications to change the beneficiary named in the policies is not the act or deed of the insured; that she is legally entitled to the proceeds of the policies; and that a judgment therefor in her favor should be rendered. After Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders had filed her answer, the defendant moved that it be permitted to pay the proceeds of the policies into the registry of the court and be discharged from any and all further liability. The motion was objected to by Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders on grounds not shown by the record. The motion was granted, and the judgment granting it recites in part: "It is further ordered that the discharge of the Progressive Life Insurance Company shall not establish any of its pleadings as fact to the prejudice of either claimant to the funds, but claimants shall be free to introduce facts to prove their respective claims." Mrs. Kathleen C. Sanders excepted to this judgment and sued out a writ of error to this court.