in dispute was not paid into court as required by the Interpleader Act.
The Union avers that $ 332,677.25 was the total sum checked off and should have been paid into court. The plaintiff admits to the amount, but claims that it was entitled to certain credits at each plant, totaling $ 62,274.00, which were deducted from checked off funds by virtue of 'local supplements' authorized by the National Agreement, Section XV, and that the sum of $ 270,403.25 which it paid into court is the full amount in dispute.
As we understand it, IUE-CIO disputes the right of the plaintiff to take these credits and, citing Edner v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 327, urges that its failure to pay into court the full amount in controversy leaves unsatisfied an indispensable jurisdictional requisite for statutory interpleader.
As the complaint now stands, it presents a case of strict statutory interpleader. If there is an actual bona fide dispute to an additional $ 62,274.00, the action will take on the aspect of a bill in the nature of interpleader pro tanto.
Whether or not there is a bona fide dispute over that amount will have to be determined at the hearing on the interpleader. If it then appears that there is a bona fide dispute, the action should be dismissed unless plaintiff is then able to amend and pay the additional amount into court or post a bond to secure same. We, therefore, dismiss this objection without prejudice to the right of any of the defendants to make it again at the hearing, if appropriate.
On the two points referred to above, the affidavits supporting and opposing the motion raise issues which we think require, inter alia, (1) that the UE, not in conjunction with its Locals, set forth its claim to the entire disputed fund, or any part thereof, if any it has; (2) that the IUE-CIO, the IUE-CIO Locals and the UE Locals set forth their respective claims to the parts of the $ 270,403.25 in dispute, and their respective claims to the parts of the additional $ 62,274.00, if any they have; (3) that testimony or depositions be taken at the hearing to the questions of fact arising out of these claims relative to the right of the plaintiff to an interpleader.
The objection that the court has no jurisdiction over the defendants who are nonresidents of Pennsylvania is without merit. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1397, 2361; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S. Ct. 44, 84 L. Ed. 85.
The objection to the venue is also without merit since some of the claimants to parts of the fund reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1397.
We think that the other propositions advanced by IUEPCIO are premature, viz., that this action should be stayed, pending decision in other proceedings, and severed and transferred to the districts where the plants of the plaintiff are located. After the hearing, if it should appear proper under the circumstances there developed, and if the court has the power to sever and transfer, or stay the action, we shall do so.