Definition
The process of interpleader is the procedural mechanism by which a party who holds property or owes an obligation claimed by two or more adverse claimants compels those claimants to litigate their competing rights among themselves, thereby relieving the holder from the risk of multiple liability or inconsistent judgments.
The "process" referred to in the full phrase is not incidental. It distinguishes the procedural device — the steps, writs, or court orders used to bring competing claimants before the court — from interpleader as a general doctrine or right. In historical usage, process referred specifically to the writs and formal instruments by which courts obtained jurisdiction over persons and compelled their appearance. The process of interpleader, therefore, is the machinery that makes the interpleader remedy work: the summons, notice, or order that draws claimants into a single proceeding.
The holder initiating the process (called the stakeholder) typically pays the disputed fund or deposits the disputed property into court and is then discharged from further liability, leaving the adverse claimants to resolve their dispute in a contained proceeding.
---
Common Confusion
PROCESS OF INTERPLEADER vs. INTERPLEADER: These terms are often used interchangeably in older sources, but the distinction matters for historical research. Interpleader is the substantive doctrine — the right to compel adverse claimants to settle their dispute between themselves. The process of interpleader is the procedural vehicle by which that right is exercised. Early equity practice separated these concepts carefully because the availability of the right did not automatically determine which procedural form applied. Modern procedure has largely collapsed the distinction, but older cases and treatises may turn on it.
BILL OF INTERPLEADER vs. PROCESS OF INTERPLEADER: In equity practice, a bill of interpleader was the formal pleading initiating an interpleader action in chancery. The process of interpleader was the subsequent court machinery — the writs and orders — compelling the claimants to appear. Researchers encountering one term in a historical source should not assume it encompasses the other.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "process of interpleader" is a term of art most commonly encountered in pre-twentieth-century sources, and researchers should be alert to several navigational issues.
First, the word "process" carries different weight across eras. In equity practice, process referred to the specific writs and court orders compelling appearance — a narrow, technical meaning. In modern procedural law, "process" is used more loosely. A historical source analyzing the "process of interpleader" may be addressing procedure in a granular sense that has no direct modern analog.
Second, interpleader procedure underwent significant transformation in the United States through the Federal Interpleader Act and later through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. Research crossing the pre- and post-1936 line will encounter fundamentally different procedural frameworks. Cases decided before Rule 22 operated under equity rules and statutory interpleader provisions that imposed different requirements, including the requirement that the stakeholder have no interest in the disputed fund and that the claimants' demands be identical in nature.
Third, the insurance context is a particularly active area for modern interpleader research. Life insurers facing competing claims from beneficiaries, estates, creditors, or claimants under slayer rules routinely invoke interpleader as the primary procedural vehicle. The Law Mind Insurance Law Encyclopedia entry on life insurance proceeds and interpleader is the most practically relevant encyclopedia cross-reference for researchers working in that domain.
Fourth, Bouvier's entry in this source set is unhelpful as reproduced — it drifts into general process doctrine and writ practice rather than addressing interpleader specifically. Researchers relying on Bouvier for this term should navigate directly to the standalone INTERPLEADER entry in that dictionary, which contains the substantive treatment.
Fifth, jurisdictional variation in historical sources is significant. English equity interpleader developed separately from statutory interpleader, and American states adopted varying approaches before Federal Rule 22 created a unified federal standard. State court interpleader in historical sources may reflect any of several distinct procedural lineages.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary captures the doctrine cleanly: interpleader is the means of determining the right to property claimed by each of two or more persons which is in the possession of a third. This definition centers on the substantive right and the stakeholder's position but does not fully illuminate the procedural "process" aspect embedded in the full phrase.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, as reproduced in the available source material, does not provide a usable entry for this specific phrase. The excerpted passage addresses general process doctrine — summons, attachment, and appearance — rather than interpleader specifically, and the second excerpt references "INTERPLEADER" as a see-also without providing the text of that entry. Researchers should treat Bouvier's standalone INTERPLEADER entry as the operative source and understand the "process of" language as Bouvier's era's way of signaling the procedural dimension of the doctrine.
Neither historical dictionary fully accounts for the transformation of interpleader procedure under modern rules. Both sources reflect a world in which equity and law were administered in separate courts, the bill of interpleader was a chancery instrument, and the procedural steps for compelling claimant appearance were governed by writ practice rather than unified civil rules. That framing is essential context for reading their definitions accurately.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal interpleader is governed by both Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (statutory interpleader), which differ significantly in jurisdictional requirements and the geographic scope of service of process. State interpleader practice varies; many states have adopted rules modeled on Rule 22, but historical state cases may reflect equity-era requirements that no longer apply in federal court.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Insurance Law Encyclopedia: "Life Insurance Proceeds — Interpleader Actions, Conflicting Claims, and Slayer Rules"
---