Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/197

 190 FEDERAL REPORTBIt. �be instituted, not only to secure for the bailee or depository protection against being compelled to pay or deliver the tning claimed to both claimants, but also to relieve him from the vexation attending upon the suits which are or may be insti- tuted against him. For a full discussion of the whole sub- ject see 2 Story's Eq. Jur. §§ 801 to 813&, inclusive, and cases cited in notes. �The doctrine has been applied to the case of a bank having possession of funds claimed by adversary parties, which is this case. The City Bank of New York v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14. �4. The remedy in such a case is, as will be seen from an examination of the foregoing authorities, by bill of inter- pleader, which is an original bill, filed by a person who claims no interest in the subject-matter, in opposition to the person against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons for the safety of the plaintiff in the bill. Story's Eq. PL § 18. The remedy is here sought by means of a cross-bill, filed in a case already commenced ; but upon examining this pleading I find that it is in substance, and in everything but name, an original bill of interpleader, and I am qî the opinion that for the purposes of this motion it may be regarded as an original suit brought by the bank, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, against the several claimants of the fund in controversy. It was filed before answering the original bill, and it contains ail the substantial allegations of a bill of interpleader, including a prayer for process and for relief. Story's Bq. PL c. 6. In form, the bill, considered as a bill of interpleader, may be slightly defective, but in substance it is sufficient, and in considering the question of jurisdiction we will look to the substance rather than to the form. As the whole contro- Tersy is presented by the crosa-bill, and can be settled there- under, I bave no hesitation in holding that this court has jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss is accordiugly over- ruled. ����