20 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Louismu STATE Lorrmsr Co. v. Cnsnx and others."
(Circuit Uourt, E. D. Louisiana. February, 1883.)
1. Isrnnrnnsnmn.
When two or more persons claim the same thing by different or separate in-
terests, and another person, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought
of right to render a debt or duty, or to deliver property in his custody, fears
that he may be hurt by some of them, he may exhibit a bill of interpleader
against them.
2. Couusnr. Fnms—Rsv. ST. 9 824.
The fee bill is intended to regulate only those fees and costs which are
( strictly chargeable as between party and party, and not to regulate the fees of
counsel, and other charges and expenses, as between solicitor and client, nor
V the power of a court of equity, in cases of administration of funds under its
control, to make such allowances to the parties out of the fund as justice and
` ( Bqlllty miiy I'Gql1lI`€.
Trustees v. Greenaugh, 105 U. B. 535, 536. _
On Motion for Rehearing on Allowance of Counsel Fees.
Simon Silverman instituted suit in the state court against the ‘
Louisiana State Lottery Company, claiming that he was the true and
lawful owner of a certain half ticket of the lottery company which
had drawn a prize of $30,000, of which he had been unlawfully dispos-
sessed, and procured a writ of injunction enjoining the lottery com-
pany from paying the prize to any other person, and prayed for a
judgment against the lottery company for the amount of the prize.
Subsequently Clem. C. Clark instituted another suit in the same state
court, upon said lottery ticket, alleging that he was the true and law-
ful owner thereof, and prayed for judgment against the lottery com-
pany for the amount of the prize, and made Silverman a party de-
fendant. Thelottery company removed both suits to this court, and
then filed the bill of interpleader in this case against both Silver-
man and Clark, admitting that the lottery ticket had won the prize
claimed, and its liability topay the same, but averring that it did not
know which was the proper party to whom it should pay the same,
and prayed for a writ of injunction compelling Silverman and Clark
to litigate their respective claims in this suit, etc. After consider-
able testimony had been taken, Silverman and Clark compromised
and adjusted their differences, and obtained an order upon the lot-
tery company to pay over the money, and thereupon the court made
an order, contradietorily with the defendants, allowing the lottery
*Rnepor:ed by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.