Mills v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 1911.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Citation226 F. 812
Docket Number1911.
PartiesMILLS et al. v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. et al.
Decision Date18 October 1915

226 F. 812

MILLS et al.

No. 1911.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

October 18, 1915

[226 F. 813]

Arthur R. Thompson and Frank Van Sant, both of Washington, D.C., and Vivian Frank Gable, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Henry S. Drinker, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The petitioners brought suit to enforce an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission for reparation under the provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce of February 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, as amended, and, the case being tried to a jury, recovered verdict and judgment against the defendants in more than $9,000. Section 16 of the act regulates the procedure in suits to enforce compliance with the orders of the Commission and provides:

'If the petitioner shall finally prevail he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit.'

Upon motion of counsel, Judge Holland ordered the allowance of a counsel fee of $1,000 for services before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and a further fee of $1,000 for services in the 'proceedings in this cause.' The defendants excepted to the fee for services before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Thereafter proceedings in error were had before the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judgment was reversed. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Clark, 207 F. 717, 125 C.C.A. 235. Upon a writ of error sued out by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed in the Supreme Court. Mills et al. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al., No. 631, 238 U.S. 473, 35 Sup.Ct. 888, 59 L.Ed. 1414, October Term, 1914 (opinion by Mr. Justice Hughes, June 21, 1915). The Supreme Court held that there was error in the allowance of a fee for services before the Commission, as it had held in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 236 U.S. 412, 35 Sup.Ct. 328, 59 L.Ed. 644. The judgment of the District Court was accordingly modified, by striking out the allowance of $1,000 as attorney's fee for services before the Commission, and, as so modified, affirmed.

The plaintiffs now present a petition for the allowance of an additional sum as attorney's fees for services before the Circuit Court of Appeals and before the Supreme Court, to be taxed under section 16 of the act as a part of the costs of the suit. The allowance is objected to by the defendants upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Creason v. Harding, 34984
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 4, 1939
    ...Ellis, 208 Mass. 196; McIlvaine v. Steinson, 85 N.Y.S. 889; Celluloid v. Chandler, 27 F. 12; Mellon v. Co., 20 F.2d 618; Mills v. Lehigh, 226 F. 812; Spencer v. Phillips, 172 Ga. 782. (5) There was actually no indebtedness from Spiller to appellant's firm. Therefore, appellant had no lien o......
  • Glens Falls Portland C. Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 173.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 17, 1933
    ...fee, "if the petitioner shall finally prevail," is directed by section 16(2), 49 USCA § 16 (2). See Mills v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (D. C.) 226 F. 812; Davis v. Parrington, 281 F. 10, 17 (C. C. A. 9). In view of the fee awarded by the District Court, we think a fee of $300 will be sufficient ......
  • Texas Co. v. Schriewer, 1026.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 12, 1931
    ...12 N. M. 202, 76 P. 286; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Sulpho-Saline Bath Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 219; Mills v. Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. (D. C.) 226 F. 812. In American Can Co. v. Ladoga Canning Co. (C. C. A.) 44 F.(2d) 763, pages 765-772, it was held that where the trial court allowed an attorney's fe......
  • Davis v. Parrington, 3799
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1922
    ...allowed by that court as attorney's fees, fees for conducting the cases in this court are also allowed. Mills v. Lehigh Valley (D.C.) 226 F. 812; N.Y., N.H. & Hartford R. Co. v. Ballou & Wright, 242 F. 862, 155 C.C.A. 450. A reasonable fee in case No. 3799 in this court is $600; in case No.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT