delivered the opinion of the court.
Advance Terra Cotta Co. v. Cross, 205 Ill. App. 291 (1917)
April 16, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,833
205 Ill. App. 291
Advance Terra Cotta Company, Appellant, v. R. Watson Cross, Appellee.
Gen. No. 22,833.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Bill of interpleader by the Advance Terra Cotta Company, complainant, against Henry B. Prosser and R. Watson Cross, rival claimants for certain shares of stock of complainant corporation, defendants. From a judgment that the stock belonged to defendant Cross, dismissing the bill for want of equity, and for costs amounting to $278.75 against complainant in favor of defendant Cross, complainant appeals.
*292Abstract of the Decision.
1. Interpleader, § 19 * —when costs properly assessed against complainant. On a bill of interpleader,, where the bill alleged that the defendant and another party were rival claimants for certain shares of stock of the complainant corporation, and it was held that the stock belonged to the defendant, and the hill was dismissed for want of equity and the costs assessed against complainant, held that, as the bill was not brought in good faith, the costs were properly assessed against the complainant.
2. Interpleader, § 19*—when complainant acting collusively or in had faith is liable for costs. Costs on a hill of interpleader are as a general rule eventually taxed against the person who made the false claim and made the proceeding necessary, but where the complainant acts collusively or in had faith, the costs of the successful claimant may be taxed against him in both the trial and Appellate Courts.
3. Interpleader, § 2*—when hill of does not lie in favor of corporation. Where a bill of interpleader filed by a corporation alleged that one of the defendants and a certain other party were rival claimants for certain shares of the stock of the company, and it appeared that the president and agent of complainant made an agreement with such defendant to the effect that upon the performance of certain services he would be given as consideration certain shares of stock, and such services were performed by such defendant and the stock was issued, and such stock was the property in controversy, and such president was the other rival claimant, held that such president had no rightful claim to the stock, and that whatever controversy there was, lay wholly between complainant and such defendant, and that therefore there was no occasion for a bill of interpleader.
Buell & Abbey, for appellant.
Edwin L. Waugh, for appellee.