Appellants contend, and we agree, the impound of one’s fund known and you can discussed inside the footnote cuatro grew of interpleader or intervention legal proceeding about all of which multiple independent and type of says is asserted: All financing now on registry of your own straight down court are made in proceedings from the very-entitled “Mallonee Situation” and you may relate solely to the fresh issues out of Connection. None of your own legal counsel explained throughout the purchase appealed regarding was did to the all interpleaders otherwise interventions in which the deposits were made. And also in nothing of your own legal proceeding which resulted in new deposits from inside the Judge has got the Los angeles Lender asserted one claim having attorneys’ fees.
To help you entertain money placed from the registry of Judge to blow the advice to own Los angeles Lender create, within judgment, feel a violent invasion of the property legal rights of the Lender from San francisco bay area illustrated because of the its “lien liberties” from this fund according to the notes out of Connection performed during the the prefer from the Ammann while in the his appropriate tenure because conservator out-of Organization. Indeed the result of order right here appealed from works to slow down the money kept during the court being protection getting a beneficial valid indebtedness due the latest San francisco bay area Lender – since there are no standard finance inside put the result of one’s purchase is to wanted payment of loans in the past, by court’s very own acquisition, kepted just like the replaced collateral protecting brand new obligations owed towards San francisco bay area Bank. Since appellants explain, the transaction further especially provides your resulting handicap from guarantee should not be cured.
It can plus look the effects of the transaction from brand new courtroom manage or may possibly enforce payment of confronted attorneys’ costs up on the fresh new Federal Offers and Financing Insurance rates Organization which became seriously involved in the lawsuits, an issue maybe not ahead of all of us with this desire.
State they brand new prize out-of attorneys’ charge here appealed from does maybe not others up on people foundation off unique package or legal authorization, and you can instance a basis is not advised. Anyhow, we have been certain you to prize out of attorneys’ fees do simply be allowable to your “prevailing class” just after an attempt to the merits – problems now out from the instance. Should your lower judge is actually versus legislation of La Step your order awarding attorneys’ charge usually do not towards any concept getting confirmed. Look for Dubil v. Rayford Camp & Co., 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 899, 902; Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Nattin, D.C., 54 F.2d 712. Neither can be this new doctrine off laws of case or res judicata eradicate an important believe and you can devotion of one’s first jurisdictional question hidden new Los angeles Step.
States Deals & Financing Co
” We feel that the Bank out of San francisco is actually lawfully when you look at the fingers of the disputed possessions and this isnt holding them due to the fact good “positive trustee” on Financial regarding La.
It can be our consider one to unless of course and you can up until Los angeles Lender succeeded and you may recovered the fresh new property formerly held by that Financial, this has none created nor maintained a finance from hence attorneys’ charge is generally paid off
Appellees to make sure us one when you look at the honours of kind of right here under talk, ultimate triumph otherwise failure in the litigation is a false amounts. The disagreement is the fact “the exam * * * [is] * * * whether the litigation are conducted when you look at the good faith and on realistic foundation.” The way it is from Pacific. v. Hise, twenty five Cal. 2d 822, 155 P.2d 809, 158 An excellent.L.R. 955, try quoted as the retaining new propriety and you will legitimacy of your own meantime prize so you can appellees on the immediate circumstances. Various other case allowed to be “squarely within the part” are Eggert v. Pacific , 53 Cal. App. 2d 554, 127 P.2d 999.