
    No. 15.
    Charner B. Strange and others, plaintiffs in error, vs. William Bell, defendant in error.
    [1.] Where, by an Act of the Legislature, certain commissioners were authorized to assess the damages which the owners of town property might sustain by the removal of the county site : Sold, that such commissioners had no jurisdiction to tiy the question of title to land — under the Constitution, that jurisdiction beiug vested in the Superior Court.
    [ 2.] Where two or more persons claim the same thing, by different or separate interests; and another person, not knowing to which of theclaimants he ought of right to render a debt or duty, or to deliver property in his custody, fears he may be hurt by some of them, he may exhibit a bill of interpleader against them.
    In Equity, in Marion Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Iverson, September Term, 1851.
    The General Assembly of 1847 passed an Act, among other things, to provide for the location of a new County site, in the County of Marion, and to compensate the owners of lots at the old site (Tazewell) for the depreciation of their real estate, by-reason of the removal. Under this Act, commissioners were appointed to assess the amount of depreciation, who, under the Act, were required to issue certificates to the owners, of the amount ascertained ; and the County Treasurer was required to pay to the holders of these certificates, the amount thereof, without farther order.
    William Bell, the County Treasurer, filed his bill of inter-pleader, against Charner B. Strange and William Wells, alleging, that upon a certain house and lot, known as the Village Hall, there was assessed by the commissioners as loss, the sum of $757, to which sum, said Strange and Wells each claimed a certificate, as the true owner of the property. The commissioners issued the certificate to Strange, but at the same time issued to Wells a certificate for $228, being fifty-seven per cent, (the rate adopted by the commissioners,) upon $400, being the amount of Wells’ interest in the property, as returned to the Tax Receiver by him. The bill alleged that Strange had obtained a mandamus ni si against complainant, to compel him to pay over the sum specified in the certificate to him, which was still pending; and that Wells had employed counsel, and was preparing also to prosecute, not only this claim on the certificate to him for $228, but also for the whole amount of depreciation assessed by the commissioners upon the Village Hall. The bill farther alleged that the $228 allowed to Wells, had been previously included and allowed by the commissioners, in the certificate granted to Strange; and that, under these circumstances, the complainant could not safely pay over the amount of the assessment without the direction of the Court. The prayer was for an injunction to restrain Strange and Wells from prosecuting their claims against complainant, and that they be compelled to interplead, and the rightful owner be decreed by the Court, to receive the fund in the hands of the complainant.
    Strange, by his counsel, demurred to this bill, for want of equity. The Court overruled the demurrer, and this decision is assigned as error.
    B. Hill and E. H. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.
    W. Williams, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

The complainant, who is the County Treasurer of Marion County, filed his bill of interpleader, in the Court below, álleging that Strange and Wells both claim to be the owners of the “Village Hall,” in the town of Tazewell, and both claim from him the payment of the damages assessed by certain commissioners, under the Act of 1847, on account of the removal of the County site from the Towm of Tazewell.

By the 7th section of the Act of 1847, it is provided that five commissioners should assess the damages sustained by the owners of town property, in the Town of Tazewell, on account of the removal of the County site, the same to be fixed at the amount the owners thereof placed upon it, in their returns of taxable property, for the year 1847, and execute to the owners of said town property, a certificate declaring the damage thus sustained, which certificate shall become a debt against the County Treasurer of said County, &c. Strange obtained a certificate from the commissioners, that he had been damaged by the removal of the county site $757, as the owner of the “ Village Hall.”

When a branch of this case was before us on a former occasion, we held, that the certificate of the commissioners was conclusive upon the County Treasurer, as to the amount assessed by them to be due, and that the same was a debt due against the County, which he could not question. Bell vs. The State, 9 Geo. Rep. 390. The County Treasurer does not now question the amount of the assessment or the validity of the debt, but asks to be protected in making payment of that debt; alleging that he is in'danger of being hurt or injured, if he pays it to Strange, ■who is the holder of the certificate. The defendants demur to the bill, and insist that inasmuch as it appears on the face of it, that Wells urged, before the commissioners, that he was the owner of the “ Village Hall” and that they considered and rejected his claim of owmership, and granted the certificate to Strange that he is now concluded, by the judgment of the commissioners, from asserting his right of ownership to the property; that if he was dissatisfied with the decision of the commissioners, he ought to have sued out a writ of certiorari, and had the judgment of the commissioners reversed, if erroneous. The answer is, that the Legislature intended to compensate^, the owners of town property in Tazewell, but made no provision as to the mode of trying the title to the property, in case of a dispute in relation thereto. The commissioners had t no jurisdiction to hear and decide the question of title between Wells andJStrange. The jurisdiction to try the question of title to land, is vested, by the Constitution, in the Superior Court. Hence, the judgment of the commissioners, granting the certificate to Strange, did not conclude Wells from asserting his ownership to the pro. perty; and if he was, in fact, the/eal owner of the property, he is entitled to the damages, notwithstanding the certificate of the commissioners. With regard to the certiorari, which Wells, might have sued out, we have only to say, that if it had been sanctioned and sustained, and a new trial ordered before the commissioners, to try the question of ownership to the land and its appurtenances, such order of the Superior Court would have been mere brulum fulmen — the commissioners having no jurisdiction to hear and determine that question, under the provisions of the Constitution.

When two or more persons claim the same thing, by different or separate interests, and another person, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render a debt or duty, or to deliver property in his custody, fears he may be hurt by some of them, he may exhibit a bill of interpleader against them. 1 Smith’s Chan. Prac. 468. Story’s Eq. Plead. 237.

The bill of interpleader is equally proper, though the party be not actually sued, or be sued by one of the conflicting claimants only, or though the claim of one defendant be actionable at Law, and the other in Equity. Richards vs. Salter, 6 Johns. Chan. Rep. 447. Angell vs. Hadden, 15 Vesey, 244. In our judgment, the complainant makes out a proper case for a bill of interpleader, and there is no error in the Court below in overruling the demurrer.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.  