Thе basic questions involved in this appeal were dealt with сomprehensively by Judge Gaulkin in the Law Division of the Superior Court. The dismissal is affirmed for the reasons stated by him and reported in 44 N. J. Super. 536 (Law Div. 1957).
*295 In addition to arguing the merits of the issues involved, cross-appellants question the legal propriety of the counsel fees granted to plaintiffs in the orders of dismissal. The ground of оbjection is that authority to make such awards is limited by R. R. 4:55-7 and that this case is not within the scope of the rule. But the allowance finds its support from another source.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is largely an equitable one and its application is a matter for the disсretion of the trial court. Gore v. United States Steel Corp., 15 N. J. 301, 312 (1954); Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry Co., 42 Cal. 2d 577, 268 P. 2d 457, 43 A. L. R. 2d 756 (Sup. Ct. 1954), certiorari denied 348 U. S. 839, 75 S. Ct. 44, 99 L. Ed. 661 (1954); Annotation, 43 A. L. R. 2d 774, 776 (1955). Even where all of the relevаnt considerations of convenience in the juristic sense point to the conclusion that an action should not be entertained in the forum where it was instituted, collateral equities may exist in a plaintiff’s favor which should not be ignored although they may not be of sufficient potency to stand in the way оf the dismissal. In such situations the exercise of discretion may аnd properly should take these factors into account by the simple device of making the dismissal subject to aрpropriate terms and conditions and thus accomрlishing equal justice between the parties. Cf. Gore v. United States Steel Corp., supra, 15 N. J. at page 313; Rodriguez v. A. H. Bull Steamship Co., 286 App. Div. 804, 143 N. Y. S. 2d 618 (App. Dw. 1955); “Place of Trial — Interstate Application of Intrastate Methods of Adjustment,” 44 Harv. L. Rev. 41, 49-53 (1930).
In this case certain manifest equities of the type referred to are present. When the suit was instituted, defendants were residents and citizens of New Jersey. In personam jurisdiction was available here; Puerto Eico offered no such haven. Consequеntly plaintiffs were faced with the necessity of invoking the aid оf our courts (or perhaps the aid of the local Unitеd States District Court) for the prosecution of the causе of action. If the defendants had had an agent in Puerto Eico upon whom process could have been served, *296 that forum would have been available. Such a state of affairs forced the plaintiffs to incur certain litigation еxpenses, including counsel fees, in order to procеed in this State. When defendants’ voluntary offer to submit to the foreign jurisdiction was made as an incident of the motion to dismiss, the court was aware of that expense burden and was entirely justified in concluding that Vargas and the other plaintiffs should be rеlieved of it as a prerequisite to the granting of the motion. Thus we find no error in conditioning the order of dismissal upon the payment of counsel fees. Allowance of fees in such circumstances is within the inherent power of the court; in еffect they are but reimbursement for expenses. Allegro v. Afton Village Corp., 9 N. J. 156 (1952); N. J. Highway Authority v. Renner, 32 N. J. Super. 197 (App. Div. 1954), affirmed 18 N. J. 485 (1955).
Although the orders of dismissal were not drawn in such form as to make it plain that payment of the counsel fees was one of the сonditions upon which they were to become opеrative, the opinion clearly signifies that intention. And we sustain thеm upon that ground.
Accordingly, the orders are affirmed in all of their aspects. Uo costs.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Waci-ieneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Francis — 5.
For reversal — Justice Heiter — 1.