Citing: Memphis Cold Storage Co. v. Woodson, 1 Tenn. App. 340; Daniels Chy. P. P. (5 Ed.) Vol. II, p. 1493 (Cooper's revision); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lane, 151 Fed., 276; Pettus v. Hendricks, 113 Va. 326; 2 Daniels Chy. Pr. (5th Ed.), 1570; Pomeroy's Eq. Rem. Sec. 59; Miller v. Watts, 4 Duer (N.Y.), 203; Canfield v. Morgan, 1 Hopkins Ch. (N.Y.), 222; Woodmen of World v. Wood, 100 Mo. App. 655; Swiger v. Hayman, 56 W. Va. 123; 107 Am. St. Rep., 899; Bedell v. Hoffman, 2 N.Y. Chy., 199. Citing and Differentiating: Daniel v. Fain, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea), 258; Helmken v. Meyer, 118 Ga. 657; Knights of Honor v. Selby, 153 N.C. 203; Temple v. Lawson, 19 Ark., 148; Modern Woodmen v. Conner, 129 Ill. App. 651; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Kinsley, 192 Ill. App. 229; Chapin v. Dake, 57 Ill. 295; Insurance Co. v. Corbin, 12 Phila., 257; 33 Corpus Juris, p. 470; Dunlap v. Hubbard, 19 Ves., 205; Dawson v. Hardcastle, 1 Ves., 389; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426; Morse v. Stearns, 131 Mass. 389; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 627, 26 L.Ed., 1157; State Fur. Co. v. Gennett, 1 Tenn. Chy., 100; Louisiana Lottery Co. v. Clark, 16 Fed., 20; Thomas Kay Woolen Mill Co. v. Sprague, 259 Fed., 338. 2. EQUITY.

Deposit of the money or property in controversy into court was a requirement in actions of interpleader also at common law. This requirement has been relaxed in many cases where no statute modifying the common law was involved, State of Texas v. State of Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 59 S.Ct. 563, 830, 83 L.Ed. 817, 121 A.L.R. 1179; Baldwin v. Constantine, 214 Ala. 446, 108 So. 345; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 68 A. 993; Nash v. Smith, 6 Conn. 421; Webster v. McDaniel, 2 Del. Ch. 297; Smith v. Nicholson, 221 Mo.App. 428, 289 S.W. 349, certiorari quashed State ex rel. Bradley v. Trimble, 316 Mo. 97, 289 S.W. 922; C.F. Duke Storage Warehouse, Inc., v. Keller, 141 N.J. Eq. 43, 55 A.2d 901; see note approving Duke case, 1 Vanderbilt L.Rev. 459, and in other jurisdictions by rule or statute (e.g., Penna. Rule Civ. Proc. 2303(a)(3), Penna.Stat.Ann.

It is well settled that this statute allows the court to award a stakeholder reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). The trial court has a wide discretion in making its awards, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.

The evidence is not printed and we cannot say from the finding that that discretion was abused. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993. Interest, in a case of this kind, is allowed on the theory that money has been wrongfully retained. The named defendant was directed to "hold said money, subject to the further and final order of this court" and cannot be said to have retained it wrongfully.

Such fee to eventually fall on the defendant who was in the wrong and made the litigation necessary. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of Cad'z., Ohio, 173 Fed.R. 390; Pettus v. Hendricks, 113 Va. 326, 74 So. E. R. 191; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 68 Atl. R. 993; Eves v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 153 Mo. App. 347, 133 So. W. R. 657; Wright v. Grand Lodge K. P. (Tex.Civ.App.) 173 So. W. R. 270; Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157; Morse v. Stearns, 131 Mass. 389; Grooms v. Mullett, 133 Mo. App. 477, 113 So. W. R. 683; Daniel v. Fain, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 258; 33 C. J. 470 and cases cited.

This statute has allowed the stakeholder to be awarded counsel fees and expenses from the funds on deposit. Chase v. Benedict, 72 Conn. 322, 328 (1899); Union Trust Company v. Stamford Trust Company, 72 Conn. 86, 93, 96 (1899); Phoenix Insurance Company v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431 (1908). Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC has made the claim for attorneys fees and costs in both the May 1, 2012 Bill of Interpleader (# 100.31) and in its amended Statement of Claim dated July 26, 2017 (# 206.00).

It is well settled that this statute allows the court to award a stakeholder reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). The trial court has a wide discretion in making its awards, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.

It is well settled that this statute allows the court to award a stakeholder reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). The trial court has a wide discretion in making its awards, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.