Hancock Oil Company v. Independent Distributing Company

Supreme Court of California · 1944 · Civil Procedure

24 Cal. 2d 497 (1944)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureInterpleaderLandlord-tenanttenantlandlordrentroyaltiessection 386

Facts

In 1936, W. L. Hopkins and his wife leased real property to Hancock Oil Company of California and R. R. Bush Oil Company. About $1,500 in landowner royalties had accrued under the lease. In 1941, Independent Distributing Co. sued claiming the Hopkinses held the leased property in trust for it and sought an accounting of the land's rents. The lessees then brought this action alleging that both the Hopkins group and the Independent group claimed entitlement to the same rents and royalties and that the lessees could not safely determine whom to pay.

Issue

May a tenant maintain an interpleader action against its landlord and a stranger to the lease when both claim the rents or royalties due under the lease? More specifically, does Code of Civil Procedure section 386 permit such interpleader notwithstanding the rule in section 1962(4) that a tenant may not deny the landlord's title at the commencement of the tenancy?

Rule

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, interpleader may be maintained although adverse claimants' titles or claims do not have a common origin and are adverse and independent of one another. A tenant may interplead a landlord and a third party when the conflicting claims concern the same obligation for rent or royalties under the lease, the tenant is a disinterested stakeholder, no independent liability exists apart from the entitlement to that obligation, and the complaint alleges facts showing a reasonable probability of double vexation; section 1962(4) does not bar such an action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Feldman leases a warehouse in Cleveland, Ohio, from Daniel Roa and owes monthly rent under the lease. A separate claimant, Lakefront Commerce Group, sues Nora alleging Daniel has long held the warehouse in trust for it and demands the same rent payments due under the lease; Daniel also demands those rent payments.

If Nora files an interpleader action against Daniel and Lakefront Commerce Group, what is the strongest argument that the action should be allowed?

Explanation. The majority held that section 386 abrogated the common law requirement that rival claims have a common origin or privity. A tenant may interplead a landlord and a stranger to the lease when both claim the same obligation for rent or royalties, the tenant claims no interest in the fund, and the facts show a reasonable probability of double vexation. The mere absence of privity does not defeat the action.