Opinion ID: 2385105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robert's counsel fees.

Text: No authority is cited for the proposition that in an interpleader action the counsel fees of the successful claimant may be taxed against the losing party. Certainly in the ordinary case of interpleader the suit becomes merely a contest between the two claimants. The usual rule in such a case is that each party must pay his own counsel fees. Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp., 33 Del.Ch. 456, 462, 95 A.2d 827. Robert cites Am.Jur. § 28, which we cited in the Maurer case. The text recognizes the rule that the successful claimant is entitled to a decree against the other defendant for the costs so take out of the fund, as well as for his own costs. The case cited in support of the text deals with the successful defendant's court costs, not with his counsel fees. Robert argues that his counsel fee is part of his costs. This begs the question. Whether counsel fees constitute costs must depend on the nature of the case. Ordinary court costs are usually allowed to the prevailing party, but counsel fees as part of allowable costs are exceptions. Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp., supra. This case does not fall within any of the exceptions. We agree with the Chancellor that Robert's counsel fee was not allowable to him as a part of his costs.