
    (72 App. Div. 180.)
    HINSDALE v. BANKERS’ LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    May 23, 1902.)
    Interpleader—Action on Life Policy—Sufficiency of Showing.
    An order of interpleader will not be granted in an action on a life policy by an assignee thereof, where the moving papers merely assert that a claim has been made on the company for the proceeds of the policy by a third person, without stating facts showing a real doubt of .plaintiff’s right to recover, or a foundation for the claim of the third person.
    Appeal •from special term, New York county.
    Action on a life policy by Christine H. Hinsdale against the ‘Bankers’ Life Insurance Company of New York. From an order -granting an interpleader, the plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
    Charles Blandy, for appellant.
    Arthur L. Sherer, for respondent.
   'PATTERSON, J.

The order appealed from, which grants a •motion for interpleader, must be reversed. The plaintiff holds by assignment full title to the policy of insurance upon which the action is brought. The motion papers disclose nothing but the fact that a claim has been made by a third party to the policy of insurance. Not a single circumstance is mentioned to indicate that that •claim has the slightest foundation. We have frequently held that something must be stated in the affidavits, upon applications of this •character, to throw a real doubt upon the right of the plaintiff to -recover. Stevenson v. Insurance Co., 10 App. Div. 233, 41 N. Y. Supp. 964; Burritt v. Publishing Co., 19 App. Div. 609, 46 N. Y. Supp. 295; Roberts v. Vanhorne, 21 App. Div. 369, 47 N. Y. Supp. 448; Golden v. Insurance Co., 35 App. Div. 569, 55 N. Y. Supp. 143; Wells v. Bank, 40 App. Div. 498, 58 N. Y. Supp. 125; Steiner v. Institution, 60 App. Div. 232, 70 N. Y. Supp. 223. There is nothing in the motion papers from .which it can be reasonably inferred that a doubt based upon facts exists as to who is justly entitled to recover upon the policy of insurance upon which this action is brought.

The order must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, •and the motion for an interpleader denied, with $10 costs, but with ■liberty to the defendant to renew the motion upon proper papers. All concur.  