“Is this a case to which interpleader procedure applies? The practice is now governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Order LVII., r. 1. The material matter in this r. 1 is sub-s. (a): "Where. the person seeking relief (in this Order called the applicant) is under liability for any debt, money, goods, or chattels, for or in respect of which he is, or expects to be, sued by two or more parties (in this Order called the claimants) making adverse claims thereto." The syndicate are not being sued by two persons; they were being sued by one and there was a threat that they might be sued by another. There are not two pending proceedings at all. One matter has ripened into a judgment, and there is nothing whatever to which this rule will apply. I do not see how we can hold that, because in the Act of 1881 the time within which interpleading procedure might be commenced was limited and that Act has been repealed, under the present practice it is possible to interplead at any time after judgment has been obtained by one claimant, and even after judgment has been given by consent. In my opinion to allow this interpleader would be altogether contrary to the language and spirit of the Rules; and without going into the other points I think the order should be discharged with the usual consequences without prejudice to any question of costs between the syndicate and the claimants.”
“A. Do Owners have a proprietary interest in the deposited funds? Short Answer Yes. Under American jurisprudence, Owners have a proprietary interest in the deposited funds that is contingent on the outcome of the pending appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The funds deposited into escrow have been identified by ST, the time charterers, as funds it is required to pay to SPACE in satisfaction of the arbitration award against ST. That obligation to pay the arbitration award was attached in the Rule B proceedings in the District of Connecticut. When garnishment process was served on ST, Owners acquired a lien on the award and on any funds allotted to its payment. This type of lien is denominated an attachment lien. Though the order of attachment has been vacated by the Connecticut court that issued it, the court’s jurisdiction over SPACE, the attached res and ST, as garnishee, remains during the pendency of the appeal. Jurisdiction was not extinguished by the order vacating the attachment. The attaching creditor’s proprietary right is an attachment lien, which remains effective, albeit not enforceable, while Owners’ right to seek appellate review has not been exhausted.”