Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Mutual Fire Insurance

122 Mass. 421, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 148
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 2, 1877·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

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

Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Mutual Fire Insurance, 122 Mass. 421, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 148 (Mass. 1877).

122 Mass. 421 (Commonwealth v. Mechanics' Mutual Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Bay State League
33 N.E. 591 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)