
    NOVEMBER TERM, 1844.
    Moses Yarborough v. Caswell C. Thompson.
    A bill of interpleader is a proper remedy where suits are either threatened, or actually pending, by two different claimants against a party claiming the same debt or duty by different or separate interests.
    But after judgment at law, and after the right is thus determined, a court of equity cannot interfere upon the footing of a bill of interpleader.
    If two judgments are rendered against a garnishee, one in favor of the attaching creditor, and the other in favor of the assignee of the note, the note being in fact the foundation of both judgments, and the garnishee having defended both cases, he cannot, in a court of equity, by a bill of interpleader, obtain a perpetual injunction against either.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Choctaw county.
    The case is fully stated in the arguments of counsel, and the opinion of the Court.
    Gray, for appellant.
    This was a bill filed on the Chancery side of the docket of the Circuit Court of Choctaw county.
    The bill sets out that the appellee, Thompson, who filed his bill in the Court below in the year 1835, made his promissory note payable to James Holbert for about one hundred and twenty dollars ; that before the note became due, about the 27th of December, 1836, Smith & Loftus sued out “ an attachment against Holbert as an absconding debtor,” and had service of garnishment upon Thompson ; that after the service of garnishment, but before the return day thereof, and before answer, he (Thompson) received notice of the transfer of the appellant; that the complainant, without regarding the notice of assignment given him (advised, as he says, by one Bennett, a lawyer of eminence), answered that he owed the amount of said note to Holbert. The bill further states, that after judgment had been rendered in the Circuit Court of Choctaw county, in favor of the appellant, to whom the note had been assigned, an execution issued thereon, a forthcoming bond was given and forfeited, and an 
      alias execution was issued, levied, and the stay under the valuation law was taken thereon. The bill further shows, that Loftus '& Smith also sued out execution on their judgment, and were endeavoring to make the money out of Thompson, the complainant. To this bill Yarborough, the appellant, filed his demurrer, which, was overruled, and the cause is brought to this Court on appeal. ‘
    The counsel for the appellant contends, that the Court erred in overruling the demurrer, upon the ground that this is not one of the cases where a bill of interpleader will lie.
    A bill of interpleader will not lie, if it show an undoubted right to the matter in controversy in each of the defendants. Story’s Equity Pleading, 237, 240. The right to interplead, or to force parties to interplead, existed at Common Law in England, and I should suppose in this country, and would be enforced here. Story’s Equity, 111.
    It is essential that the bill of interpleader should show that each defendant claims a right, and such a right as they may interplead for, otherwise the defendants may both demur. The one, because the bill shows no claim of right against him ; the other, because the bill showing no claim of right in the co-defendant, shows no cause of interpleader. Story’s Equity, 125.
    The remedy of interpleader is only intended to extend to doubtful claims, or where the holder of the chattel, or the debtor, cannot know to whom he ought to render the thing claimed ; but never was intended to embrace a case where the defendant must know to whom the thing ought to be rendered. Oldham v. Ledbetter, 1 Howard’s Rep. 43.
    
      William G. Thompson, for appellee.
    The appellee filed his bill of complaint to the March term, 1841, of the Circuit Court for Choctaw county, representing that in December, 1835, he executed his promissory note to one James Hol-bert, for the sum of $170, payable on or about the 25th of December, 1836. That on the 27th of December, 1836, he was served with a summons of garnishment at the instance of Loftus & Smith, who had sued out an attachment against Holbert, as an absconding debtor; that after the service of said writ, but before the return thereof, complainant had notice that the said note had been transferred. That at the April term, 1837, of the Lowndes Circuit Court, from which said writ was issued, he answered to the same ; and that in his answer he omitted, through the advice of his counsel, to state that he had received notice of the transfer of said note, being advised that such statement was wholly unnecessary for his de-fence, inasmuch as he received notice after he had been served with said writ; and that judgment was rendered against him at the said term of the Court, for the sum of $170. That at-term of the Circuit Court for Choctaw county, suit was brought against complainant on said note, by Yarborough, as assignee thereof; that he plead the recovery of the said judgment against him, but the Court considered his plea insufficient, and rendered judgment against him for the sum of $187.87 ; that an execution issued, and complainant gave a forthcoming bond, which was forfeited, and an execution issued thereon ; that an execution has also issued on the judgment recovered by Loftus & Smith. That complainant justly owes the amount of said note, with interest; offers to pay it into Court ; and prays that the parties may be compelled to interplead, &c.
    Upon this bill an injunction was granted.
    The defendants demurred specially; the Court overruled their demurrer ; and the cause is brought up to this Court by appeal.
    It is manifestly inequitable that the complainant should be compelled to pay this debt twice. Either one or the other of the defendants is certainly not justly entitled to it. In the present situation of the case, it is impossible for the complainant safely to make his election which of them to pay it to.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The single point presented in the argument of this cause, is, whether the bill discloses a case in which a bill of interpleader can be sustained.

The complainant Thompson was indebted to one James Holbert by promissory note, who assigned it to Yarborough, the present appellant. Holbert was indebted to Loftus & Smith, who issued a garnishment against Thompson. At the time of the service of the garnishment, Thompson had no notice of the assignment, but received notice before he filed his answer. Under the advice of counsel, as the bill alleges, the complainant filed such an answer to the garnishment, that judgment was rendered against him upon it for'the amount of the note. Suit was subsequently brought by Yarborough the assignee upon the note, who likewise recovered judgment upon it. The complainant then filed this bill of interpleader against the judgment-creditors respectively, requiring them to interplead, and praying that one or the other might be perpetually enjoined.

A bill of interpleader is a proper remedy when suits are either threatened, or actually pending by two different claimants against a party, claiming the same debt or duty by different or separate interests. The complainant not knowing to which of right he ought to pay or render it, files a bill and requires them to interplead, that the Court may determine the right. Cooper’s Equity PI. 46; 2 Story’s Equity, 112, et seq. The principle of a bill of interpleader is to protect the party, not only from being compelled to pay, but also from the vexation attending the discussion of all the suits that may be instituted. 15 Yes. 246. It is not necessary in order to justify the filing of such a bill, that suit should actually have been commenced ; it is sufficient that claim should have been made against the party, and that he is in danger of being • molested by conflicting rights. 2 Story’s Equity, 116.

But after judgment at law, and after the right is thus determined, a court of equity cannot interfere upon the footing of a bill of inter-pleader. The complainant might have made his defence at law, or at all events, should have filed his bill before judgment; because of the familiar rule, that a court of equity cannot give relief when the party might have made defence at law.

There is no evidence that anything unconscientious was done by either of the defendants in this case, in obtaining their judgments. Each proceeded upon a legal claim. The complainant defended each, but from some cause was unsuccessful in both. One of the judgments is no doubt wrong ; but, from the bill, the error was induced by the complainant’s answer to the garnishment. A court of,, equity has no power to correct the errors in judgment of a court of law ; that belongs to the appellate tribunal. Neither can it compel one party to relinquish a judgment at law, because his adversary did not comprehend his rights, or was mistaken in a matter of law. The case is a hard one, but the complainant has no right to complain of either of the defendants, or of the Court. The judgments of the courts of law, upon the facts before them, were right in each instance. If a case of fraud or surprise in obtaining either of the judgments were made out against either of the parties, that might entitle the complainant to relief against such party ; but that would be done upon an original bill, not a bill of interpleader. 2 Robinson’s Prac. 214.

This conclusion is reached in full view of what is said by the Court, in Oldham v. Ledbetter, 1 How. 47. The remark in that case, that the plaintiff could have protected himself by bill of inter-pleader, was thrown out without sufficient consideration. It was not a point for decision. The ’cases there cited only prove, that a judgment against a garnishee upon an attachment, after an assignment of his note, will not form a bar in his favor, in an action by the assignee.

If, in such case, the garnishee answer with the requisite caution, he will run no risk. If he state the fact, that he executed a note to the debtor of the attaching creditor, but he does not know who holds it, or whether it be assigned or not, — still more, if he state that it has been assigned, and that he has received notice of it, no judgment upon the attachment can be rendered against him. See Huff v. Mills, 7 Yer. 45. Of course he must answer according to the fact. But if he neglect so obvious a precaution, he is but in the situation of every other defendant, who neglects his proper defence at law, at the time he has the means of making it.

The decree of the Court below will be reversed, and the bill dismissed.  