
    (27 Misc. Rep. 123.)
    SCHWEIGER v. GERMAN SAV. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    April 4, 1899.)
    1. Interpleader—Disputed Bank Deposit.
    A bank sued for a deposit, the ownership of which is disputed, is entitled to an interpleader, where the complaint is verified, and shows that a payment of the fund to the other claimant could only be made at some substantial risk.
    
      2. Same.
    The bank is entitled to the interpleader, though an application by plaintiff to restrain the payment of the fund to the other claimant during the pendency of the action has been denied, since such denial is not conclusive of the validity of plaintiff’s claim.
    Action by George Schweiger, as president of the Prinz Bupprecht Section, No. 6, des Bayerischen National Verbandes von North America, against the German Savings Bank of the City of New York, impleaded with others. Heard on motion by defendant bank for an interpleader.
    Granted.
    E. I. Spink, for German SaV. Bank.
    F. L. Drescher, for plaintiff- and George Voelkel, trustee.
    Joseph Steiner, for defendants.
   GIEGEBICH, 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 plaintiff’s claim. It may be that plaintiff’s 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. Settle order on notice.  