Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Mutual Fire Insurance
This text of 122 Mass. 421 (Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Mutual Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The petitioner’s services as solicitor were not rendered in relation to any trust fund, or in behalf of parties summoned in by the court to assert their claims to any fund in its custody, or in securing a fund to be distributed by the court, but in resisting the collection of assessments to increase the fund. No precedent or rule of practice has been referred to, which would justify a court of chancery in making an allowance for such services out of the fund obtained against such op. [423]*423position. The surplus of the assessments, not required for the payment of debts and of the expenses of the collection, stands as if it had not been collected; the petitioner has performed no services as to the disposition of this surplus ; and the court has no duty in regard to it, except to order it to be repaid to the holders of policies. The petitioner must look for his compensation to the parties who employed him. Petition dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 Mass. 421, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mechanics-mutual-fire-insurance-mass-1877.