
    The Progressive Handlanger Union No. 1, App’lt, v. The German Savings Bank, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 6, 1890.)
    
    Banks—Interpleader—Laws 1882, chap. 409.
    In an action against a savings bank to recover a deposit brought by a person in whose name the account stands the defendant may, under § 259 chap. 409, Laws 1882, interplead a claimant of the fund, even though such claimant does not actually claim the whole of the deposit.
    Appeal from order of interpleader.
    Action to recover a deposit of moneys made by plaintiff in the defendant’s bank Claim having been made to said fund by other parties, defendant applied for leave to interplead them, which motion was granted.
    Appellant claims that the statute is in derogation of common right and must be construed strictly. The statute expressly provides that the same fund must he claimed, not that it is claimed that the funds are the same. A mere general and bare statement that the funds in dispute in the action are the identical funds claimed by the parties sought to be substituted as defendants, in the absence of any specification whatever showing the actual identity of the funds in question, could not have been contemplated by the statute as sufficient ground whereon to relieve a savings bank as therein provided for.
    Eespondent claims that the claim is to the deposit, the same fund, the bank has no power to go behind the demand and institute a private court of inquiry as to the merits of the claim; it must pay at its peril; that savings banks having no interest in the funds received on deposit, acting simply as trustee without compensation, are highly favored by the law, and it was clearly the intention of the law makers to free savings banks from all embarrassment and expense concerning adverse claims to funds on deposit, since such expense must be borne by the other depositors.
    The court in granting the motion delivered the following opinion:
    Sedgwick, J.—The application should be grantr . under § 259, chap. 409, Laws of 1882. That section contemp' is that, as in the present case, an action at law may be brought oy a person in whose name the account with the bank is, and then that a third person may claim the deposit as a fund equitably belonging to the third person, and that in such a case the section shall be applied.
    I have a little doubt as to whether the claimant actually claims the whole deposit If this be so, I am of opinion that the section will still apply.
    Motion granted.
    
      Qoodha1) Phillips & Boseriburg, for app’lts; Lewis Sanders, for resp’t
   Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon the opinion rendered by the learned chief justice at special term.

Freedman and Ingraham, JJ., concur.  