
    George Schweiger, as President of the Prinz Rupprecht Section No. 6, der Bayerischen National Verbaudes von North America, Plaintiff, v. The German Savings Bank, Impleaded, etc., Defendants.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    April, 1899.)
    Interpleader.
    Where the plaintiff, by a verified complaint, claims a fund in the hands of a bank, his defeat on a motion to restrain the bank from paying a rival claimant does not of itself afford sufficient ground for the denial of a bank’s motion that it be allowed to interplead the rival claimants.
    Motion by German Savings Bank for an interpleader.
    E. B. & W. J. Amend (E. I. Spink, of counsel), for motion.
    F. L. Drischer, for plaintiff, and George Voelkel, trustee, consenting thereto.
    Roesch & Steiner (Joseph Steiner, of counsel), opposed.
   Giegerich, J.

The fact that the plaintiff was defeated upon his motion for an injunction to restrain a payment by the bank to the rival claimants of the fund does not conclude the question as to the validity of the plaintiffs claim. It may be that plaintiffs case will be found stronger at the trial than it was made to appear upon application for a provisional remedy. The claim is made by verified complaint and it sufficiently appears that the bank would make the payment to the other claimants at some substantial risk. I think that a case for interpleader is made out both under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Banking Law.

Motion granted.  