Davis v. Bay State League

• Decision Date: 04 March 1893
• Parties: DAVIS et al. v. BAY STATE LEAGUE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

158 Mass. 434

33 N.E. 591

DAVIS et al. v. BAY STATE LEAGUE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 4, 1893

The facts were found as follows in the lower court (Lathrop, J.:) "Prior to November 16, 1891, certain members of the Bay State League had obtained evidence of fraud and mismanagement on the part of the supreme officers and, acting on this information, they retained Messrs Whipple and Stark, counselors at law, to begin proceedings against the order. They applied to the superior court for an injunction, and the appointment of a receiver. On November 16th the bill was filed, and an injunction was obtained. The officers of the supreme lodge of the defendant employed counsel to represent the order, and to contest the appointment of a receiver. Several hearings upon the bill followed, and the appointment of the receiver was contested and delayed in every possible way by the supreme officers. Mr. Williams was not a counsel for the plaintiffs prior to November 16, 1891; but on that day, and thereafter until the appointment of the receiver, he was associated with Messrs Whipple and Stark. All of these counselors rendered faithful and valuable services, which resulted in saving a large amount of money for the certificate holders and other creditors of the defendant order. I find that one thousand dollars is not more than a fair and proper charge for the services rendered, and that the expenses stated in the petition were properly incurred. If, under these circumstances, the court has power to direct that these amounts, or either of them, be paid out of the fund in the hands of the receiver, I am of opinion that they should be paid; and I report this question for the consideration of the full court. Such order or decree is to be made as equity and justice may require."

COUNSEL

Sherman

L. Whipple, R.M. Stark, and Henry M. Williams, for plaintiffs.

OPINION

FIELD C.J.

In Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U.S. 567, 582, 6 S.Ct. 870, it is said that "when many persons have a common interest in a trust property or fund, and one of them, for the benefit of all, and at his own cost and expense, brings a suit for its preservation or administration, the court of equity in which the suit is brought will order that the plaintiff be reimbursed his outlay from the property of the trust, or by proportional contribution from those who accept the benefit of his efforts." The subject has been carefully considered in Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S 527, and Railroad Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S.Ct. 387. This court has acted on this rule, not only in cases of express trusts under wills or other written instruments, but in a proceeding for the common benefit of many persons interested in the preservation of property. Bowditch v. Soltyk, 99 Mass. 136; Frost...