Editing Interpleader (section)

===In the United States===
Formerly a plaintiff had to disavow any claim to the ''res'' in order to avail himself of the interpleader remedy, but this requirement has also been relaxed or abolished in most jurisdictions by there being a [http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bill-in-the-nature-of-interpleader/ Bill in the Nature of Interpleader] rather than a [https://archive.org/details/merriamwebstersd0000merr/page/51 <!-- quote=strict interpleader. --> strict bill of interpleader].<ref>2 Story, Equity Jurispruedence § 824 (1st ed. 1836).</ref>  A plaintiff may now argue that neither of the claimants has a right to the property at issue.  For example, a person dies with a life insurance policy that excludes coverage for suicide.  Two people come forward claiming to be the beneficiary named in the policy.  The insurance company believes that the deceased committed suicide, but the claimants believe the death was by accident.  The insurance company could interplead the two claimants and simultaneously deny the claims.

The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled in ''[[New York Life v. Dunlevy]]'' {{ussc|241|518}}, that for a claimant to be bound by an interpleader that party must be served process in a way that obtains [[personal jurisdiction]].  In 1922 the United States Supreme Court in ''[[Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon Nat. Bank]]'' {{ussc|260|235}} sustained that a defensive interpeader in an action at law in federal court could be taken under Judicial Code section 274b added by {{USStat|38|956}} that authorized the interposing of equitable defenses in actions at law.

The [[Federal Interpleader Act of 1917]] {{usstat|39|929}} was enacted by the [[64th United States Congress]] approved February 22, 1917 to overcome the problem with an interpleader when the claimants live in different states raised in ''New York Life v. Dunlevy''. The Federal Interpleader Act of 1917 allowed an [[insurance company]], or [[Friendly society|fraternal benefit society]] subject to multiple claims on the same [[Insurance policy|policy]] to file a suit in [[equity (law)|equity]] by a bill of interpleader in [[United States district court]]s and providing nationwide [[service of process]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cleary | first1 = James T.| title = Federal Interpleader and Some Recent Cases| journal = Georgetown Law Journal| volume = 26 | pages = 1017| url =http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/glj26&div=70&id=&page=
}}</ref>  The policy must have a value of at least $500 claimed were claimed or may be claimed by adverse claimants; which is less than the [[amount in controversy]] of $3,000 in [[Judicial Code of 1911|Judicial Code]] §48(1) then required for general [[diversity jurisdiction]] and two or more of the beneficiaries must live in different states. In 1926 it was repealed and replaced by, {{usstat|44|416}} approved May 8, 1926, which added  to those who can bring suit [[Casualty insurance|casualty]] company and [[surety]] company, empowered the court to enjoin claimant from proceeding in any state or other federal court on the same liability, adding provisions as to the proper venue for the interpleader in certain cases but required that there must be actual claims by eliminating the words "may claim" that were in the 1917 act. In 1936 the Federal Interpeader Act was again repealed and replaced by the [[Federal Interpleader Act of 1936]], {{USStat|49|1096}}, approved Jan. 20, 1936, drafted by [[Zechariah Chafee]] which codified it in as [[Judicial Code of 1911|United States Judicial Code]] §41(26), and established the modern [[#Statutory Interpleader|statutory interpleader]] allowing suit to be brought by any person, firm, corporation, association or society having custody of money or property or insurance policy or instrument valued at $500 or more which there are two or more adverse claimant who are citizens of different states, whether or not the claims have common origins, identical, adverse or independent of each other, and allowed it to be an [[:Category:equitable defenses|equitable defense]] in actions at [[Common law#3. Law as opposed to equity|law]], Judicial Code §274b.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Chafee|first=Zecheriah|title=Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: I|journal=Yale Law Journal|date=April 1936|volume=45|issue=6|pages=963–990|doi=10.2307/792068|jstor=792068|url=https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/12648/2/47_45YaleLJ963_1935_1936_.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Chafee|first=Zecheriah|title=Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: II|journal=Yale Law Journal|date=May 1936|volume=45|issue=7|pages=1161–1180|doi=10.2307/792010|jstor=792010}}</ref> When  the United States Judicial Code was enacted into [[United States Code]] as [[positive law]] in 1948, {{usstat|62|931}} approved June 25, 1948, it was reconstituted as {{UnitedStatesCode|28|1335}}, {{usc|28|1397|pipe=1397}}, and {{usc|28|2361|pipe=2361}}.

Federal courts have held that because of the deposit of the ''res'' with the court an interpleader action is an action to determine the validity of competing claims to identified property that served may be under {{usc|28|1655}} which authorize other forms of service to obtain ''[[in rem jurisdiction]]'' over absent defendants.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/441/1082/209688/ ''Estate of Swan v. O'Gilvy'', 441 F.2d 1082] (5th Cir. 1971), [http://leagle.com/decision/19701257429F2d828_11022/GUY%20v.%20CITIZENS%20FIDELITY%20BANK%20AND%20TRUST%20COMPANY ''Guy v. Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co.'', 429 F.2d 828] (6th Cir. 1970), 
[http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=19811201519FSupp682_11119.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7 ''Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. v. Garmaise'' 519 F.Supp. 682] (S.D.N.Y. 1881).</ref>