Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Sprage v. Ticonic National Bank…

Whether one professes to sue representatively or formally makes a fund available for others may, of course, be a relevant circumstance in making the fund liable for his costs in producing it. But when such a fund is for all practical purposes created for the benefit of others, the formalities of the litigation-the absence of an avowed class suit or the creation of a fund, as it were, through stare decisis rather than through a decree-hardly touch the power of equity in doing justice as between a party and the beneficiaries of his litigation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Sprage v. Ticonic National Bank…

As in much else that pertains to equitable jurisdiction, individualization in the exercise of a discretionary power will alone retain equity as a living system and save it from sterility. In the actual exercise of the power to award costs 'as between solicitor and client' all sorts of practical distinctions have been taken in distributing the costs of the burden of the litigation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Sprage v. Ticonic National Bank…

The sources bearing on eighteenth-century English practice-reports and manuals-uniformly support the power not only to give a fixed allowance for the various steps in a suit, what are known as costs 'between party and party,' but also as much of the entire expenses of the litigation of one of the parties as fair justice to the other party will permit, technically known as costs 'as between solicitor and client.' [2] To be sure, the usual case is one where through the complainant's efforts a fund is recovered in which others share.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature