Plaintiff, George E. Channell, Jr., has moved for an award for attorney fees.
Channell, as president of the defendant union, was ousted from his office by action of the individual defendants who were then officers and members of the national executive committee of said union. Channell sued for restoration to his office by way of injunction. Upon the trial of the issues there was no dispute as to the facts and circumstances upon the record made. From these the court found that such action was “unwarranted, unauthorized, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law”; and ordered Channell restored to his office together with all and singular the emoluments appertaining thereto.
*43The judgment of this eourt has not been reversed nor modified.
It has been admitted that the defendant union paid the attorney fees for all defendants.
It was stipulated that the sum of $5,150.00 is a reasonable attorney fee for counsel for the plaintiff.
It would appear that the generally accepted view is that courts have been reluctant to award attorney fees in so-called similar cases.
In this case plaintiff has projected and bottomed his quest for relief in that branch of remedial justice known as a court of equity. In the broad sense in which the term equity is sometimes used it signifies natural justice. In a more limited application, it denotes equal justice between contending parties.
Defendants in effect contend that “equity follows the law.” This is true as a general maxim. Equity adheres to an exception in relation to those matters which give a title to equitable relief because the rules of law would operate to sanction fraud or injustice in the particular case.
Courts of equity grant relief from considerations of public policy, because of the mischief which would result if the court did not interfere.
Prior to the whimsical action of the defendant officers and members of the defendant union the parties were possessed of an equality related to a likeness in possessing the same rights and being liable to the same duties. These same officers and members knowingly removed Channell from his office by the usurpation of power by force as if by right and then defended their collective action in this court but called upon the union treasury to pay for the entire defense.
The commands of the times are upon us. As such the equitable maxims “Equity will not permit a wrong without a remedy” and “Equality is equity” should be invoked.
In rendering justice the word “equal” implies, not identity, but duality, the use of one thing as the measure of another.
The court feels that under the undisputed facts *44and circumstances presented here that its equitable jurisdiction requires a holding that public policy should prevail. Thus, where the officers and governing members of a union oust a member of the official family for no apparent reason and thereafter pay for the defense of their action from the union treasury equal justice demands a corresponding obligation to pay for the prosecution of restoration.
Accordingly plaintiff’s motion should be and it is hereby sustained and plaintiff should recover as and for attorney fees herein the sum of $5,150.00.