Commonwealth Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. New Jersey Lime Co.

Full title: COMMONWEALTH TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY LIME CO. et al.

Court: COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Jan 21, 1916

86 N.J. Eq. 460 (Ch. Div. 1916)

99 A. 723

Opinion

No. 38/419.

01-21-1916

COMMONWEALTH TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY LIME CO. et al.

Charles Hunsicker, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Theodore Simonson, of Newton, for complainant. Martin Conboy, of New York City, for Bethlehem Steel Co. and others. Francis Lafferty, of Newark, for Fidelity Trust Co. Hugh B. Reed, of Newark, for New Jersey Lime Co.

HOWELL, V. C.

Suit by the Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Company, trustee, etc., against the New Jersey Lime Company and others. On applications for allowances. Granted as to complainant's counsel, and refused as to the other parties. Decree affirmed by Court of Errors and Appeals in 99 Atl. 335.

See, also, 100 Atl. 52.

Charles Hunsicker, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Theodore Simonson, of Newton, for complainant. Martin Conboy, of New York City, for Bethlehem Steel Co. and others. Francis Lafferty, of Newark, for Fidelity Trust Co. Hugh B. Reed, of Newark, for New Jersey Lime Co.

HOWELL, V. C. As I read the statute relating to counsel fees (P. L. 1910, p. 427), this court is authorized to make allowances by way of counsel fee to successful litigants only, and it was so held by Vice Chancellor Learning in Sparks v. Ross, 82 N. J. Eq. 121, 88 Atl. 214. This authorizes an allowance to the complainant's solicitors according to the rates fixed by rule 224 (6 Atl. iii). I have made a calculation in accordance with this rule, and find that the complainant's counsel are entitled to a counsel fee of $695.

I do not think that the Bethlehem Steel Company should be granted any allowance. The statute plainly contemplates the granting of an allowance, if any is granted, upon a basis of a percentage of the amount recovered by the successful litigant. There was no award of money to the Bethlehem Steel Company; hence there is no basis for making a calculation.

The rule above mentioned was made for the purpose of giving effect to an act passed in relation to the subject on April 3, 1902. This rule was not promulgated until February 6, 1910; the act now in force took effect on April 11, 1910. No new rule has been promulgated since the act of 1910, but I understand the practice to be to follow rule 224.

The result is that the complainant's counsel are allowed $695, and that there is no allowance to any other of the parties to the cause.