NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
C. H. BANCROFT, AS RECEIVER OF CITY NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New York Life Insurance Company sought interpleader relief to deposit life insurance policy proceeds in court when two parties claimed the proceeds: a bank receiver claiming through assignment and the insured's heir claiming through inheritance. The Florida Supreme Court held that the claims were sufficiently connected through a common source (the assignment's scope and effect) to permit interpleader.
The Court held that interpleader relief was appropriate because both claimants' titles were connected and derived from a common source. The heir's right of inheritance depended on whether the assignment cut off her inheritance rights, meaning both parties' claims ultimately turned on the scope and effect of Rand's assignment to the bank, creating the necessary privity of estate and title.
“The theory on which the equitable remedy by inter-pleader rests is that several persons claim the same thing or fund held by another, that the stake holder is not a wrongdoer and is willing to bring the common fund into court to determine to whom to pay it, that he should be protected against the conflicting claims of those interested in the common fund, and that the conflicting claimants should be required to litigate their rights to the fund among themselves.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and requirements of interpleader as an equitable remedy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNew York Life issued a life insurance policy payable to Frederick H. Rand Jr.'s estate. Rand assigned the policy to City National Bank of Miami during…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
This case grows out of these facts: Appellant issued a policy of life insurance in favor of Frederick H. Rand, Jr., payable to his estate. The policy was assigned by the insured to the City National Bank of Miami. Rand died in 1934 and 'appellee, C. H. Bancroft, as receiver of Rand’s assignee, brought an action at law against appellant, as defendant below, to recover the proceeds of the policy. Ruth Rand West, the sole surviving heir of the insured, also claimed the proceeds of the policy by right of inheritance under the statute of descents.
In April, 1935, appellant filed its bill of complaint in this cause, naming appellees as defendants, wherein it admitted liability on the policy, disclaimed any interest in the proceeds thereof, tendered the amount due thereon into' the registry of the court, and prayed for an order requiring the appellees to litigate their claims to the proceeds of the policy between themselves. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, was granted and this appeal was prosecuted from that decree.
The sole question with which we are confronted is whether or not the facts as thus stated constitute sufficient basis for interpleader.
*12The theory on which the equitable remedy by inter-pleader rests is that several persons claim the same thing or fund held by another, that the stake holder is not a wrongdoer and is willing to bring the common fund into court to determine to whom to pay it, that he should be protected against the conflicting claims of those interested in the common fund, and that the conflicting claimants should be required to litigate their rights to the fund among themselves. 15 R. C. L. 221, par. 2.
A bill of complaint seeking relief by interpleader must allege that the plaintiff is perfectly indifferent to the conflicting claims or claimants, that the same fund is claimed by the several parties against whom relief is sought, that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter, and that all adverse claims are connected or dependent, or that one is derived from the other or from a common source. Fogg v. Goode, 78 Fla. 138, 82 So. 614; Jacksonville Ice & Storage Co. v. South Fla. Farms Co., 91 Fla. 593, 109 So. 212; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Eno, 99 Fla. 887, 128 So. 622; 15 Revised Common Law 224, Sec. 6. In Fogg v. Goode, supra, we held that when the' complainants assert their rights under adverse titles and not in privity, and where their claims are of different natures the bill cannot be maintained.
In view of the law as thus stated the vital and ultimate question here is whether or not the claim of Bancroft and Ruth Rand West to the proceeds of the policy in question is connected or dependent, or whether the one is derived from the other, or from a common source. In other words, is there privity of estate, title, or contract between the claimants.
The claim of Bancroft is based on the assignment of the policy by Rand during his lifetime to the City National *13Bank of which he is now receiver. The source of Bancroft’s claim is consequently the contract of assignment. The claim of Ruth Rand West, the sole surviving heir of Frederick H. Rand, Jr., is based on inheritance by operation of the statute of descents. Section 3618, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 5483, Compiled General Laws of 1927.
While the source of the claim of Ruth Rand West is by inheritance from the insured as his sole surviving heir, if her right of inheritance was cut off by Rand’s assignment to the City National Bank, then she has no claim to the proceeds of the policy. So in its final analysis her claim depends on the scope and effect of Rand’s assignment to the City National Bank. In this view of the case whether Bancroft or Ruth Rand West has the superior claim to the proceeds of the policy turns on said assignment.
Being so, the title of both parties is connected and derived from a common source. There is privity of estate and title between them and this is ample ground to support relief by interpleader. Atwell v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 120 Fla. 694, 163 Sou. Rep. 27; Southern Insurance Co. v. Fordham, 155 Miss. 445, 124 So. 492; Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Manassee, 68 Fla. 316, 67 So. 120.
The judgment below is accordingly reversed.
Reversed.
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States & Marjorie C. Walsh v. Nichols, 84 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1956)…ere such as would have entitled the insurance company to file a bill of interpleader in equity. See Miller v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 148 Fla. 1, 3 So. 2d 519; McKinnon v. Reliance Ins. Co., 113 Fla. 370, 151 So. 699; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bancroft, 122 Fla. 10, 164 So. 515. But it is equally true that a judicial decision in the suits filed against it by claimants would determine, once and for all, the proper disposition of the fund in its hands; and the consolidation of the two suits for trial served the…
-
Lennie L. Ulery v. Asphalt Paving, Inc., 119 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…v. West, 128 Fla. 193, 174 So. 327, 329, was relied on by the chancellor in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. This case, which first appeared before the Florida Supreme Court under the style of New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bancroft, 122 Fla. 10, 164 So. 515, is not controlling. In that case the designated beneficiary was the “executors, administrators or assigns” of the insured, Frederick Rand. Rand had assigned “all dividend, benefit and advantage to be had or derived therefrom” to the Ci…
-
Bancroft v. West, 128 Fla. 193 (Fla. 1937)…Buford, J. This is the second appearance of this case here. See New York Life Insurance Co. v. Bancroft as Receiver, 122 Fla. 10, 164 Sou. 515. The pertinent facts are stated in that opinion. The policy agreed to pay the amount of insurance therein named as follows: “Promises to pay at the Home Office of the Company in the City of New York, upon receipt at said Home Office…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Eno, 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930)
- Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. S. Fla. Farms Co., 91 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1926)
- Fogg v. Goode, 78 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1919)
- Atwell v. The W. Fire Ins. Co., 120 Fla. 694 (Fla. 1935)
- The Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Joseph Manasse & the Dutton Bank, 68 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1914)