holding "that where one of many parties having a common interest in a trust fund, at his own expense takes proper proceedings to save it from destruction and to restore it to the purposes of the trust, he is entitled to reimbursement, either out of the fund itself, or by proportional contribution from those who accept the benefit of his efforts"
How later courts described this case
- holding "that where one of many parties having a common interest in a trust fund, at his own expense takes proper proceedings to save it from destruction and to restore it to the purposes of the trust, he is entitled to reimbursement, either out of the fund itself, or by proportional contribution from those who accept the benefit of his efforts"
- recognizing that when a plaintiff wins a judgment creating a fund that benefited others as well as himself, the plaintiff is entitled to contribution from the other fund beneficiaries toward his litigation expenses including attorney fees
- finding, in a common fund case, that plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees from the fund itself or directly from other beneficiaries of the action
- recognizing that plaintiff had ability to utilize a common fund to pay attorney’s fees but making no reference to the basis for a representative suit
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Villanueva v. Wolff, 175 N.J. Super. 430 (1980)
Both Greenough and Sprague,supra, are distinguishable from the instant case in that both involved costly effort, i. e., litigation, on the part of the petitioner which benefited the others.
Distinguished by Merkel v. Long, 375 Mich. 214 (1965)
Mr. Justice Adams, writing now on rehearing, concedes that the doctrine of Greenough and Sprague is inapplicable to the facts of this case, the litigation resulting in no “preservation of or additions to the trust estates”.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Miller
dissenting..
While I agree, to the decree of the court in this case, I do not agree to the opinion, so far as it is an argument in favor of a principle on which is founded the grossest judicial abuse of the present day; namely, the absorption of a property or a fund which comes into the control of a court, by making allowances for attorneys’ fees and other expenses, pending the litigation, payable out of the common- fund, when it may .-be finally decided that the party who employed the attorney, or incurred the costs, never had any interest in the property or fund in litigation.
This system of paying from a man’s property those engaged-in the effort to wrest it from him can never receive my approval ; and as I have had no opportunity to examine the authorities cited in the opinion, I can do no more than protest against the doctrine.