Reed

Orient Insurance v. Reed

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 1000·81 Cal. 145·22 P. 484
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1889No. 12196California565 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

The complaint avers that plaintiff insured Buffum & Co. against loss of or damage to certain property by fire; that the property was damaged by fire to the extent of two thousand five hundred dollars, for which plaintiff is liable; that defendant Reed claims said money by virtue of an attachment served on plaintiff, and that defendant Lewis also claims said money by virtue of an assignment from said Buffum & Co., and that plaintiff has no claim on said money, and desires to pay it to the party defendant who is legally entitled to it, etc. The prayer is, that defendants be required to interplead together concerning their claims to said money; that plaintiff be authorized to pay the same into court, and that thereupon it be discharged from liability therefor to either defendant. The defendants—after demurrers overruled — both answered, each setting up his respective claim, as stated in the complaint. Lewis averred that the amount due was not $2,500, but $2,587.88. Plaintiff then amended its complaint, acknowledging the latter amount as the correct sum due. The court found the facts substantially as stated in the complaint, and entered judgment decreeing that plaintiff forthwith pay.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.