
    FRANCOIS P. FAIVRE, Plaintiff v. UNION DIME SAVINGS INSTITUTION, Defendant. Appeal by LOUIS GROSCLAUDE and OCTAVE D’HAINAUT, Claimants, Appellants.
    
      Interpleading under laws of 1882, chapter 409 (chapter 10 of the Act)— Ordering pass book to be delivered to the clerk of the court.
    
    An order of interpleader made under that section which substitutes claimants in place of defendant should not provide for the opening of a new „ account by the defendant to the credit of the action, and that on proof of the opening of such new account, the defendant is entitled to an order striking it out as party defendant; instead thereof the order should require the fund to be deposited in court according to the usual practice in such oases. The fact that the claimants had brought action against the defendant for the same fund does not call for any provision to be made in reference thereto in the order of interpleader. Such an order may require the claimants to deliver up to the clerk of the court the pass-book to await the determination of the action.
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    
      Decided January 5, 1891.
    Appeal from an order. The provisions of the order were as follows :—
    “ It is ordered that Louis Grosclaude and Octave D’Hainaut be, and they hereby are, substituted as defendants in this action in the place and stead of the Union Dime Savings Institution.
    
      “ It is further ordered that the defendant, the Union Dime Savings Institution, close said account numbered 210,718 in the name of Josephine Laurent and Francois Faivre, and open a new account as a deposit to the credit of this action, under its usual by-laws and regulations and at the interest as shall be declared by the defendant, to await the final determination of this action, to be drawn only upon an order of this court, and made upon notice to all the parties who have appeared herein and only on delivery of the pass-book now held by the claimants herein.
    “ It is further ordered that upon proof being made by an affidavit of a.n officer of the defendant, the Union Dime Savings Institution, of the closing of said account, No. 210,713, and the opening of a new account to the credit of this action, the defendant, the Union Dime Savings Institution, shall be entitled to an order striking out the defendant, the Union Dime Savings Institution, as a party to this action and discharging it of and from any and all liability for the moneys deposited aforementioned, or by reason of any of the matters or things in the amended complaint herein contained, but nothing herein contained shall affect any suit or suits against the defendant which was brought for any cause of action accruing to the claimants before the death of Josephine Laurent.
    “ And it is further ordered that within three days after the entry of this order, Louis Grosclaude and Octave D’Hainaut, the claimants, be, and they hereby are, directed to deliver up to the clerk of this court, to await the determination of this action, the pass-book numbered 210,718, issued by said Institution and representing the deposit in controversy.”
    
      H. A. Vieu, attorney, and of counsel for appellants, made, among others, the points, rulings on which are stated in the head note.
    
      Arnoux, Hitch & Woodford, attorneys, and William H. Arnoux of counsel, for respondent, The Union Dime Savings Institution.
    
      G. A. C. Barnett, for respondent Faivre.
   The Court (per Curiam) in modifying the order and affirming it as modified, wrote as follows: The orders, when modified as hereinafter directed, may be sustained under the General Banking Act of the State of New York, Laws 1882, Chap. 409 (See Chap. 10 of said Act). The provision directing the Union Dime Savings- Insti-. tution to open a new account as a deposit to the credit of this action under its usual by-laws and regulations, etc., should be stricken out, and in place thereof the said Savings Institution sho.uld be required to deposit the fund in court according to the usual practice in such cases. As thus modified the orders- should be affirmed without costs to either party on this appeal.  