Kline v. Indrio Fruit & Realty Co.

W.D. Pennsylvania

Kline v. Indrio Fruit & Realty Co.

59 F. Supp. 835, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2464

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 16, 1945

DocketC. A. No. 59

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F. Supp. 835 (Kline v. Indrio Fruit & Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kline v. Indrio Fruit & Realty Co., 59 F. Supp. 835, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2464 (W.D. Pa. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s attorneys have asked for the allowance of a reasonable fee for services as plaintiff’s counsel. We find no proper basis on which we can grant the request. There has been no fund recovered in this case as to which other interested parties might share in the results of the litigation. All that has been accomplished by the trial of this suit is a decree entitling plaintiff, as administratrix d.b.n.c.t.a. of the estate of James M. Dickey, to have issued to her two hundred and forty-one shares of the capital stock of defendant corporation. This will give plaintiff control over the defendant corporation to the extent of giving her a controlling vote in the election of directors for the corporation at the corporate election we have authorized to be held. But this will not justify the court in making an order to require the corporation to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees.

The petition for allowance of attorney fees as against the defendant corporation will be denied.

Order of Court

Now, April 16, 1945, the petition of plaintiff’s attorneys for attorney fees as against defendant, is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s attorneys have asked for the allowance of a reasonable fee for services as plaintiff’s counsel. We find no proper basis on which we can grant the request. There has been no fund recovered in this case as to which other interested parties might share in the results of the litigation. All that has been accomplished by the trial of this suit is a decree entitling plaintiff, as administratrix d.b.n.c.t.a. of the estate of James M. Dickey, to have issued to her two hundred and forty-one shares of the capital stock of defendant corporation. This will give plaintiff control over the defendant corporation to the extent of giving her a controlling vote in the election of directors for the corporation at the corporate election we have authorized to be held. But this will not justify the court in making an order to require the corporation to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees.

The petition for allowance of attorney fees as against the defendant corporation will be denied.

Order of Court

Now, April 16, 1945, the petition of plaintiff’s attorneys for attorney fees as against defendant, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. Supp. 835, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-v-indrio-fruit-realty-co-pawd-1945.