Loursinu sum Lorrnm oo. v. CLARK. 21
company counsel fees for bringingthis suit. Defendants then moved
for a rehearing.
J ohn D. Rouse and William Grant, for complainant.
D. C. at L. L. Labatt and Henry O. Miller, for defendants.
Plenum, J. "When two or more persons claim the same thing by
different or separate interests, and another person, not knowingto
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." Dan-
iell, Ch. Pr. 1560; Story, Eq. 806.
The bill of interpleader, then, was properly Bled in this case.
"The fee bill is intended to regulate only those fees and costs which
are strictly chargeable as between party and party, and not to regu-
late the fees of counsel and other charges and expenses as between.
solicitor and client; nor the power of a court of equity in cases of ad- i
ministration of funds under its cont·rol to make such allowance to the
parties out of the fund as justice and equity may require. And the act ’
contains nothingwhich can be fairly construed to deprive the court
of chancery of its long-established control over the costs and charges ,
of the litigation to be exercised, as equity and justice mayrequire,
including proper allowances to those who have instituted proceedings for
the benqitof the general funcl.'" Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 535,
536. In that case it is further declared that in litigation upon rail-
road mortgages, where funds have been subject to the control of the
court, "it has been the practice, as well in courts of the United S
States as in those of the states, to make fair and just allowance for
expenses and counsel fees tothe trustees, or other parties promoting
the litigation, and securing the due application of the property to the
trusts ami charges to which it was subject;" and that "such allowances, if
made with moderation and a jealous regard to the rights of those in-
terested in thefund, are not only {admissible, but agreeable to the prin-
ciples of equity and justice." V _, V
In the case before us a mere stakeholder, without fault himself, in
possession of a fund claimed entire by contending parties, {but, as the
result shows, with equal rights and claims thereto,) brings the same
into court, thereby promoting the litigation and securing the due ap-
plication of the property. From the nature of the contending claims
and the circumstances of the case he incurs expense and counsel
fees in bringing the fund into court. There is no equity in compelling ‘
him to bear these charges. On the contrary, the parties who have
benefited thereby should bear them. And this we understand to be