Nichols, 011097 MSAGO, AGO 96-833
|Docket Nº:||AGO 96-833|
|Case Date:||January 10, 1997|
(1) Would a Rule 22 MRCP interpleader action be appropriate to determine which claimant is entitled to the stolen vehicle or to any part thereof? (2) Who would be responsible for any expenses associated with the disbursement of the abovementioned stolen property, such as removing the engine from the stolen vehicle and installing it in the rightful owner's vehicle?In response to Question No. 1, an interpleader action is described in Mississippi Chancery Practice as follows:
It sometime happens that a party who is in no wise a wrong doer with respect to the matter has in his hands a fund or other personal property which he holds as a trustee or as a stakeholder, or which otherwise he has in his possession without any further claim to it in his own right, and which he is ready to pay over or deliver to its lawful owner. He cannot safely do so, for there are two or more conflicting claimants to it, each demanding it in his own separate right, leaving the holder in doubt as to whom of these he ought to pay or render it. The holder is permitted to file an interpleader by which he interpleads the several claimants and requires them to contest among themselves respecting their claims. The...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP