
    Francois P. Faivre, Pl’ff, v. The Union Dime Savings Institution, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 5, 1891.)
    
    Interpleader—Banks.
    In an action to recover a fund in a bank, other claimants were allowed to be impleaded and the bank was ordered discharged on opening a new account to the credit of the action. Beld, that the latter provision was improper and should be stricken out and the bank directed to deposit the fund in court.
    Appeal by Louis Grosclaude and others from an order of interpleader and an order discharging the Union Dime Savings Institution from liability upon the original deposit upon its opening a new account to the credit of this action and upon delivering the pass book to the clerk of the court.
    Appellants contend, among other things, that the court had no power to make the order providing that the name of the defendant be wholly stricken out as a party hereto and yet be allowed to retain the money, as the act under which it moves does not authorize the same and no order but strictly in conformity with the terms of said act could be made; that no order could be made compelling these appellants to give up the bank book as required by ■said order, as there is a dispute as to the entries therein, and claimants will need the same on the trial to prove their case.
    
      H. A. Fiera, for app’lts; William H. Arnoux, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam

The orders, when modified as hereinafter directed, may be sustained under the general banking act of the state of New York. Laws 1882, ch. 409. (See ch. 10 of said act.) The provision directing the Union Dime Savings Tnst.it.ntion to open a new account as a deposit to the credit of this action under its usual by-laws and regulations, etc., should be stricken out and in place thereof the said savings institution should be required to deposit the fund in court according to the usual practice in such cases. As thus modified the orders should be. affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., and Freedman, J., concur.  