
    GODDARD v. LEECH AND HALL.
    Bill of interpleader — practice in — case ripe for hearing.
    A stakeholder may come into equity and pay the money, and require the contending claimants to interplead and settle their rights.
    When chancery has a cause for one purpose, it will retain it to do justice. *
    A bill of interpleader is ripe for hearing, when the facts are found or agreed; if not, the cause will be sent to a court or to a jury to find the facts, though the chancellor may find them for himself at his discretion.
    In chancery. The complainant, a lawyer, had placed in his hands by Hall, a note (not negotiable) endorsed to him by Leech, the payee. He brought suit in the name of Leech, for the use of Hall, and has recovered judgment and received $171. Before the judgment, Leech gaVe notice that the note was his, and not to pay to Hall. Both threaten suit. The complainant offers to pay the money into Court, and prays that the defendants may interplead and settle their rights.
    Hall, in his answer, sets up a claim to the note, by virtue of a purchase of Leech, in Virginia, and the endorsements.
    
      Leech, in his answer, sets up an agreement between him and Hall, by which Hall was to receive the note and an interest Leech held-in a tract of land in Virginia, to pay a debt he owed one Gould, and support Leech and his wife for their lives: and he avers that Hall neither paid the debt nor provided for their support, but he has been compelled to pay the debt by a sale of the land, and therefore that Hall obtained the note without consideration.
    Depositions were taken.
    
      Culbertson, for Hall, and Conners, for Leech,
    were proceeding to argue their respective claims, but were stopped by the Court, who supposed that course not' the proper practice.
    
      Conners,
    
    contended, that where the proof was taken, and the cause ripe for hearing, the Court would hear and settle the whole controversy. He relied upon 9 Ves. R. 107; 2 Ves. R. 138, 304; 16 Ves. 107; 2 Bro. Ch. C. 149; 3 Bro. Ch. 299; -1 Cox Ch. 357.
    
   Wright, J.

Here are conflicting interests. The complainant has an undoubted fight to bring in the money in his hands and be discharged. It is equally clear that an order should pass that the defendants interplead and settle their claims. In practice, we do not consider it necessary to compel one of the defendants to file a formal bill, and the other to answer. Having possession of the case to protect the interest of the complainant, we can, on common principles, retain it to do complete justice to all the parties. If the case is ripe for decision, we would at once render a final decree. We do not understand this case to be ripe for decision. The facts on which the claims of the defendants rest, are in contestation — evidence has been taken. In our practice, the court may find the facts for itself, make up an issue, and call a jury in this Court, under the statute, send an issue to be tried on the law side of the court, or refer the matter to a master. The latter is the most usual course, and the most convenient. We do not feel disposed to search through the evidence for the facts; but if you will agree to them, or take steps to have them found, we will apply the law to them. You can dispose of the case in either of these ways, as you may be advised.

Referred -to a master and continued for report. '  