Piuma

This appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County sitting in probate in *192 volves the same parties who were before the court in Piuma v. Minetti, ante, p. 184 (this day decided). This appeal, however, is brought by the beneficiary from that portion of the superior court’s order which denied his petition for an allowance from the trust funds with which to pay the fees of his attorney. The facts surrounding the controversy are set forth in Piuma v. Minetti, supra, and need not be repeated here.

There is no general rule which permits the recovery of attorney’s fees by a successful litigant. Compensation for the services of an attorney must ordinarily be paid by the client employing him, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as a special agreement or special statutory provision. (Miller v. Kehoe, 107 Cal. 340, 343 [ 40 Pac. 485 ]; Los Angeles Trust & Sav. Bank v. Ward, 197 Cal. 103 [ 239 Pac. 847 ]; Bank of America v. West End etc. Co., 37 Cal. App. (2d) 685, 696 [ 100 Pac. (2d) 318 ]; Code of Civ. Proc., § 1021; 7 Cal. Jur. 286; 7 C. J. S., 1043; 14 Am. Jur. 38 .) In addition to the exceptions provided by statute there are certain actions in…