In 1977, the City of Liberty passed an ordinance for the annexation of 5.4 square miles of land, and initiated a suit pursuant to § 71.015, RSMo 1978 (The Sawyers Act), for a declaratory judgment authorizing the annexation. Appellants were named in the City’s petition as a representative class of inhabitants in the area proposed for annexation; several employed present counsel. The trial court authorized the City to proceed with the annexation and denied appellants’ motion for allowance of attorneys’ fees. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment of an[*331] nexation, Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of the City of Liberty v. Beard, 613 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.App.1981), but reversed the denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded the issue for further consideration by the trial court. This Court transferred the cause on the issue of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of the City of Liberty v. Beard, 613 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. banc 1981) (Supreme Court order).

The question is whether defendants in an action for annexation, brought by a city in compliance with § 71.015, RSMo 1978, may be awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses. The answer is “no”, and the remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Appellants contend the trial court is authorized by statute to make a just and equitable award of costs and that such costs can include attorneys’ fees.

The rule in Missouri is that absent statutory authorization or contractual agreement, each litigant, with few exceptions, must bear the expense of his own attorneys’ fees (American Rule). Arnold v. Edelman, 392 S.W.2d 231, 239 (Mo.1965); Moore v. City of Pacific, 534 S.W.2d 486, 505 (Mo.App.1976); Rook v. John F. Oliver Trucking Co., 505 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Mo.App.1973); Duncan v. Townsend, 325 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Mo.App.1959). See also Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 87 S.Ct. 1404, 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967).

Although appellants refer to § 527.100, RSMo 1978, which provides that the court may make an award of costs in a declaratory judgment action, they show no statutory authorization or contractual agreement for an award of attorneys’ fees to satisfy the governing rule.

The obvious exception to the rule in Missouri is represented by Bernheimer v. First National Bank, of Kansas City, 359 Mo. 1119, 225 S.W.2d 745 (1949). Although it was a declaratory judgment action, it was filed in equity to obtain construction of a testamentary trust insofar as determining whether the minor plaintiff was the lawful issue of the body of his father. The trustees, residuary legatees and potential unborn future issue of the father were parties. In such special circumstances, the court awarded attorneys’ fees to all parties for the reason that there was an ambiguity in the phrase “lawful issue” and its resolution and attendant questions were “important to the testamentary trustees in ascertaining the meaning of the will, and in charting a course for the administration of the trust estate.” 225 S.W.2d at 755.

Appellants extract the statement from Labor’s Educational and Political Club—Independent v. Danforth, 561 S.W.2d 339, 350 (Mo. banc 1977), that “ ‘costs’ has been interpreted to include attorneys’ fees.” This is attributed to Bernheimer v. First National Bank, distinguished supra, and is not persuasive on the question here.

The judgment in denial of attorneys’ fees is affirmed.