Terry v. SUPREME FOREST, WOODMEN CIRCLE
| Decision Date | 22 December 1926 |
| Citation | 21 F.2d 158 |
| Parties | TERRY v. SUPREME FOREST, WOODMEN CIRCLE, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Joe Frassrand and Will F. Chamlee, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Tatum & Tatum, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendants.
In this cause the defendant Supreme Forest, Woodmen Circle, answered the bill of the plaintiff and set up and claimed the right to interplead by virtue of the Act of Congress passed May 8, 1926 (28 USCA § 41, par. 26), authorizing certain insurance companies to file bills of interpleader. The sum of $716.26 was paid into court by the defendant Supreme Forest, Woodmen Circle. Counsel for Terry and for the Woodmen Circle have agreed upon an order allowing the accrued costs to be paid out of the fund and forwarded this order to the court for approval. Messrs. Tatum & Tatum, solicitors for the Woodmen Circle, in open court moved the court to have their fees settled and allowed by them from the fund, and have forwarded to the court for approval an order to this effect, bearing the O. K. of counsel for opposing claimants of this fund.
Upon the initial consideration of this motion I was inclined to disallow it, but upon a more thorough study of the matter I have allowed the same and approved this order for entry. The equitable theory upon which it is allowed seems to be that the defendant Supreme Forest, Woodmen Circle, has no interest in the litigation except as a stakeholder, and that by the payment of the fund into court they have in a sense preserved the same for the benefit of the party who shall at the end of the litigation be entitled to it. As the basis for my action I am leaving this memorandum in the file with the following citation of authorities, to wit:
Gibson's Suits in Chancery, § 720, in which section the form used by Judge Gibson allows the cost to be paid out of the fund; Spring v. South Carolina Ins. Co. et al., 8 Wheat. 268, 5 L. Ed. 620; Trustees of Internal Improv. Fund v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 535, 26 L. Ed. 1157; McNamara v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. (C. C. A.) 114 F. 914; Groves v. Sentell, 153 U. S. 485, 14 S. Ct. 898, 38 L. Ed. 785.
In Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Clark (C. C.) 16 F. 20, Judge Pardee said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimmers v. Dodge Brothers
... ... in which the defendant resides or is found," the Supreme Court held that it was required, as under section 24 of the ... ...
-
Danville Building Ass'n v. Gates
...attorneys fees may be allowed at the discretion of the court. Hunter v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 551; Terry v. Supreme Forest, D.C., 21 F.2d 158; Texas Co. v. Xavier, D.C., 54 F.Supp. 722; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Jackel, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 475; Stitzel-Weller Distille......
-
Western Life Insurance Company v. Nanney
...in a sense preserved the fund for the benefit of the party or parties who shall eventually receive it. Cf. Terry v. Supreme Forest, Woodmen Circle, D.C. Tenn. (1926), 21 F.2d 158. But, this plaintiff had a more self-serving interest here, viz.: it is required to pay the proceeds of the life......