Scott v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Sep 28, 1929 No. Docket No. S.F. 13495.Published

Before: Seawell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an attorney's fee for services rendered to one group of claimants cannot be charged against a common fund when those services were performed on behalf of an interest adverse to other claimants of that same fund.

Issues

Whether an attorney's fee for services rendered to majority members of a dissolved lodge may be paid out of a common fund contested by minority members.
Whether the equitable principle allowing attorney's fees from a common fund applies when the services were performed for an adverse interest.

Disposition. Petition denied and writ dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The equitable rule relied upon by petitioner Scott does not authorize a deduction from the fund where the services sought to be compensated by a deduction from the fund have been performed in behalf of an adverse interest.”

“The equitable principle contended for by petitioner Scott is not applied to render persons who have employed and been represented by an attorney of their own choice indirectly responsible for the fee of an attorney hired by others.”

SEAWELL, J.

Petition for writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to fix a reasonable attorney’s fee for services performed by one George D. Collins, Jr., in certain litigation instituted by petitioner herein, and to order said fee paid

[305]

from a fund which has been decreed to be the property of all who were members in good standing of San Francisco Lodge Number 198 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen at the time of the dissolution of said lodge before said fund is distributed on a

pro rata,

basis among the members of said dissolved lodge.

The charter of said local lodge was revoked by the grand lodge for disobedience of the rules of the grand lodge. Thereafter Robert C. Scott, petitioner herein and a member of said local lodge, purporting to sue on behalf of himself and all members of said lodge, brought two actions in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to procure a

pro rata

distribution of the assets of said lodge, consisting of four Liberty bonds and $1500 in cash, among the members of good standing of the local lodge at the time of its dissolution. The grand lodge, through its appropriate officer, filed a cross-complaint wherein the claim was asserted that upon dissolution the assets of the San Francisco local lodge were forfeited and became the property of the grand lodge. One Wrinkle, also a member of the local lodge, filed a complaint in intervention on behalf of himself and those minority members of the local lodge who had voted against the majority upon the issue which led the grand lodge to revoke the charter of the local body. Said minority members later associated with local lodge No. 947, a new lodge organized under the sanction of the grand lodge. Their claim ivas that the property constituted a trust fund for those members who had remained faithful to the parent organization to the exclusion of other members.

. Before the trial of the actions the treasurer of the dissolved lodge deposited the bonds in court, and the bank in which the funds of said lodge were deposited paid the amount thereof into court. The trial court found in favor of said minority members that the property constituted a trust fund for the benefit of the minority only. Upon appeal the District Court of Appeal reversed the judgments in said two actions, and directed the trial court to appoint a suitable person to sell the bonds and distribute the proceeds and the cash on hand “equally among

Scott v. Superior Court

AI Brief

SEAWELL, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief