Stickney v. Goward
| Citation | 201 N.W. 630,161 Minn. 457 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,409 |
| Parties | MINNIE C. STICKNEY v. E. DEAN GOWARD AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Crow Wing county to recover $700. The case was tried before Stanton, J., who dismissed the action. From an order denying her motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Action for attorneys' fees properly dismissed.
An insurance company issued a certificate to a member naming his widow the beneficiary; subsequently his children by undue influence induced him, then incompetent, to cause the company to issue another certificate naming them the beneficiaries. After his death both the widow and the children made proofs of loss and demanded payment. The widow sued the company, and the children were substituted as defendants, the company having paid the money to a stakeholder agreed upon. The widow prevailed. In this action brought by her against the children to recover the attorneys' fees she expended in the first action, it is held: The first action being between the same parties, no other expenses connected with its conduct than those taxed therein in favor of the winning party are recoverable against the losing party, hence this action for the reasonable attorneys' fees paid by plaintiff in the first suit was properly dismissed.
Selover, Schultz, Mansfield & Bryan, for appellant.
M. E. & C. A. Ryan, for respondents.
In 1889 William E. Stickney became a member of the Modern Woodmen, receiving a certificate under which his wife, plaintiff, was to receive $2,000 upon his death. The certificate remained in the possession of plaintiff until her husband's death in January, 1920. A few years before his death, and while an inmate of the Minnesota Soldiers' Home, there was issued to him another certificate, naming his and plaintiff's three children beneficiaries instead of plaintiff. Both the widow and children presented proofs of death and demanded the insurance. Plaintiff brought suit against the insurer. By agreement the money was paid to a stakeholder and the children substituted as defendants. One child disclaimed, and the action proceeded as to the other two and their spouses. A jury by special verdict found that the last certificate was procured when the insured was incompetent and by means of undue influence practiced by or in behalf of the children. Adopting the special verdict the court found for plaintiff, awarding her the insurance.
The present action is to recover the attorneys' fees plaintiff expended in the first mentioned suit. When plaintiff rested, having proved the facts above recited, and that she had paid her attorneys in that suit $700, which was no more than a reasonable fee, the court, on motion of the defendants, dismissed the action. From a motion denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
The question presented by this appeal seems to have been settled more than 50 years ago in this state by Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146, where it was said: "It is perfectly well settled that the fees of attorneys and counsel, and other expenses of the litigation, beyond legal costs, cannot be recovered by the plaintiff in any actions of contract, or in those actions of tort in which punitive damages are not allowed; for first, these expenses are not the legitimate consequence of the tort or breach of contract complained of; second, to allow these expenses to the plaintiff, which are never allowed to a successful defendant, would give the former an unfair advantage in the contest; and third, where, as in this state, it is provided by statute that 'the prevailing party may be allowed certain sums, termed costs, by way of indemnity for his expenses in the action,' it is not in the power of courts or juries to increase the allowance fixed by statute, however inadequate that allowance may be." It was also said that the better opinion was that, even in actions of tort where punitive damages were permissible, no allowance should be made for attorneys' fees. Of course, if such are not to be allowed in a direct action to recover damages for the tort, neither are they when a separate suit is brought for that purpose. This was approved in Frost v. Jordan, 37 Minn. 544, 36 N.W. 713.
Counsel for plaintiff base the right of recovery upon Bergquist v. Kreidler, 158 Minn. 127, 196 N.W. 964, and the cases therein cited. The opinion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial