
    John M. Anderson vs. Edward C. Wilkinson, et per contra.
    
    The complainant, in a bill of interpleader, cannot, after the filing of the bill, set up a right in himself to the fund in controversy ; by his hill he admits he has no interest in the fund, and leaves it to the defendants to adjust their conflicting claims.
    When the complainant, in a bill of interpleader, has brought the fund in controversy into court, with interest up to the time of filing his bill; and after filing his bill the complainant sets up a claim, as a creditor of one of. the defendants, to the fund, and the claim is adjudged to the other defendant, the complainant will not be chargeable with any interest from the time he brought the money into court.
    On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor.
    Edward C. Wilkinson filed his bill in the superior court of chancery, in which he states that he executed his note for a certain consideration, which came lawfully into the hands of Hiram G. Runnels, who pledged it as collateral security to certain persons unknown to complainant, who had assigned it to John M. Anderson, for whose use complainant had been sued on the note. That Runnels had notified him that the note was still his property, and that he must not pay it to any one but himself.
    The bill proceeds : “ Your orator further showeth unto your honor, long before the institution of said suit, and before your orator had notice that the note had passed from the hands of said Runnels, your orator, knowing he owed the said Runnels, became liable for him, the said Runnels, in a larger amount than the amount expressed in the face of said note, and that since said suit has been instituted your orator has been compelled to pay the same, which sum the said Runnels now owes your orator, or at least the sum beyond the amount of said note.
    “ Your orator further showeth that said Runnels is insolvent, and that unless your orator can protect himself against the recovery sought against him on said note, he will be without remedy in the premises.
    “Your orator further shows, that rf the legal or equitable title to the note was in Runnels, when the latter became in debt to your orator, your orator is entitled in law to have the said debts set-off, the one against the other.
    “ Your orator further showeth that he is ready and willing to pay the said amount of money mentioned in said note, to whom the same is justly due, and for that purpose now brings the same into this honorable court.”
    
      The bill expresses the apprehension of the complainant, lest he be compelled to pay the money twice; asks for an injunction against the suit at law, and prays that Runnels and Anderson may be compelled to interplead, and that the court would adjudge to whom the note belonged. '
    In pursuance of an order of court the complainant brought the money due on the note into court, with interest up to the filing of the bill.
    Anderson answered the bill, and set out his right to the note.
    The bill was taken for confessed as to Runnels; proof was taken, and the chancellor decreed that Wilkinson’s claim was not equitable, dismissed his bill, and directed that he should pay the costs of the suit. The money he awarded to Anderson, but refused to allow him interest since the filing of the bill. Anderson appealed; and Wilkinson entered a cross-appeal, because the chancellor had not decreed the whole sum to him.
    Both appeals were prosecuted.
    
      A. C. Baine, for Anderson,
    Cited Story’s Eq. PI. § 297, b; Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 Paige, 199; Hamer v. Johnston, 5 How. (Mi.) R. 198; 1 Johns. Ch. R. 581; 2 lb. 442, 478 ; 7 How. (Mi.) R. 360; 1 S. & M. 531.
    
      W. R. Miles, for E. C. Wilkinson,
    Cited 1 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 474, 475; How. & Hutch. 373, § 12; Rev. Code of Ya. chap. 125, § 5; 2 Wash. R. 233, 255; 6 Cranch, 204; 1 Munf. 533 ; 19 Johns. R. 49; 1 Tuck. Com. 335 ; Feazle v. Dillard, 5 Leigh, 30; 8 Alabama R. 217; 1 Dev. Eq; 151; 2 lb. 31; Abbey v. Van Campen, Freem. Ch. R. 273.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill of interpleader, filed by Wilkinson in the superior court of chancery, against John M. Anderson and Hiram G. Runnells, requiring them to interplead and state their several claims, to a certain note executed by the complainant, so that the court might adjudge to whom of right said note belongs, in order that he might be protected in its payment, and not have to pay it twice. The complainant, also, on a subsequent day, paid the amount of the note into court, with interest up to the time of filing the bill.

An answer was filed by Anderson, showing his title to the note, and the bill was taken for confessed against Runnels. The proof fully sustains the title of Anderson, as against his co-defendant.

The complainant afterwards set up claim to the money, in his own right, on the ground that Runnels, who once held the note, became indebted to the complainant, before notice of the transfer of the note to Anderson.

The chancellor decreed the sum paid into court, to Anderson, without interest from the time of payment; from this decree Anderson appealed, because he claimed interest, on account of the claim set up by Wilkinson to the fund.

Wilkinson appealed because the whole fund was not decreed to him.

The principles which govern bills of this character, are thus stated in a recent case: “ Thé;definition of interpleader cannot now be disputed. It is where the plaintiff says, 1 have a fund in my possession, in which I claim no personal interest, and to which you, the defendants, set up conflicting claims; pay me my costs, and I will bring the fund into court, and you shall contest it, between yourselves. The case must be one in which the fund is matter of contest between two parties, and in which the litigation between those parties will decide all their respective rights in regard thereto.” Hoggart v. Cutts, ] Craig & Phill. 204; 3 Daniel’s Ch. Prac. 1753. These principles have been frequently recognized in this court, and their application is decisive of this case.

The decree is correct in all respects, and is affirmed; each appellant to pay the costs of his own appeal; and the costs of the court below, to be paid as therein directed.

Decree affirmed.  