H. LOWE, APPELLANT,
v.
EAST AND WEST COAST RAILWAY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this laborer's lien enforcement action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court's decree awarding the plaintiff $9,000 in labor costs plus interest and attorney fees, finding the record did not support how the precise amount was calculated and noting constitutional questions about the attorney fee statute.
The court reversed and remanded because the decree cannot be sustained when the proven labor items do not total the awarded amount and the record does not show how that precise figure was calculated. The court also noted constitutional infirmities with the attorney fee statute but did not resolve that issue since the defendant did not raise it.
“As the items of labor proven under the allegations of the bill of complaint do not total exactly $9,000.00, and as it does not appear from the evidence how that precise, amount could have been arrived at, the cause should be remanded for a proper decree predicated upon the probative effect of the evidence already adduced”
Establishes the core reason for reversal—the trial court's award lacks evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. Lowe performed labor on the road bed and track of the East and West Coast Railway. The trial court awarded Lowe $9,000 for work and labor, $1,902 i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Whiteieud, J.
In a suit to enforce a laborer’s lien, there was ultimate decree for the complainant in the sums of $9,000.00 for work and labor done and bestowed upon the road bed and track of the defendant company,, interest amounting to $1,902.00 and for $1,096.20 as attorney fee. Sec. 2191 et sseq., Gen. Stats., 1906.
The complainant appealed, claiming a right to a larger recovery, while the defendant as appellee filed cross-assignments of error under Special Rule 4 permitting it in chancery cases, the purpose being to contest the recovery awarded by the decree.
As the items of labor proven under the allegations of the bill of complaint do not total exactly $9,000.00, and as it does not appear from the evidence how that precise, amount could have been arrived at, the cause should be remanded for a proper decree predicated upon the probative effect of the evidence already adduced and upon the principles of law that may be announced herein, or otherwise applicable thereto.
There can of course be no recovery in this suit for services not rendered to the defendant as provided by the statute giving the lien; and charges not authorized by larv or by the evidence should not be allowed the defendant against proven amounts due the complainant for labor performed within the contemplation of the statute giving the lien and sufficiently covered by the allegations of the bill of complainant.
The appellee has not raised the question of the constitutionality of Section 2218 of the General Statutes of 1906, allowing a. recovery of attorneys’ fees by the plain tiff in cases of this nature, as applied to the facts of this case; but this court has noted that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that Section 2218 of the General Statutes is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. See Phillips v. Atwell, 76 Fla. 480, 80 South. Rep. 180; Union Terminal Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 247 Fed. Rep. 727; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Polt, 232 U. S. 165, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 790; Nelson v. Selden, etc., 78 Fla. 204, 82 South. Rep. 286.
In Dell v. Martin, 41 Fla. 221, 26 South. Rep. 188, a divided court held a somewhat different statute to be valid as applied in that case. Since then the principles of organic law controlling such matters have been more fully developed. See Taylor on Due Process of law, Sec. 251 et seq.; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Harris, 234. U. S. 412, 58 L. Ed. 1377, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 790, L. R. A. (N. S.) 1915E 942, and Notes 947; Union Terminal Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 159 C. C. A. 585, 247 Fed. Rep. 727.
Reversed and remanded for a proper decree.
Browne, O. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., con- • cur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palm Beach Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1922)…80, 80 South. Rep. 180; Union Terminal Co. v. Turner Coast Co., 247 Fed. Rep. 727; Nelson et al. v. Selden Cypress Door Co., 78 Fla. 204, 83 South. Rep. 286; Empire Drug Co. v. Smith, 78 Fla. 594, 83 South. Rep. 458; Lowe v. East and West Coast Ry., 79 Fla. 43, 83 South. Rep. 671. In the ease of those materialmen and laborers, who under contract furnished material and labor for buildings, pergola and cement walks, driveways and garages, all of which were appurtenant to the buildings in Graham Circle, or…
-
Crim v. Drake, 86 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1923)…Terminal Co. v. Turner Const. Co., 247 Fed. 727, 159 C. C. A. 585, 11 A. L. R. 880; Nelson et al. v. Selden Cypress Door Co., 78 Fla. 204, 83 South. Rep. 286; Empire Drug Co. v. Smith, 78 Fla. 594, 83 South. Rep. 458; Lowe v. East & West Coast Ry., 79 Fla. 43, 83 South. Rep. 671.” For the errors in denying the motion to strike the replication to the fourth plea, and entering judgment for the [*476] plaintiff in which attorney’s fees were allowed, the judgment is reversed. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J.,…
-
Sec. Fin. Co. v. Gardener, 94 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1927)…n 3525, Revised General Statutes of Florida. This Court has held in a number of cases that the provision in this statute which allows solicitor’s fees in favor of the material men and laborers is unconstitutional. See Lowe v. East & West Coast Rwy., 79 Fla. 43, 83 Sou. 671; Crim v. Drake, 86 Fla. 470, 89 Sou. 349. Because of the reasons stated, it appears that the essential requirements of the law were not complied with in the obtaining of the judgment as disclosed by the record. The judgment of the Cou…
Authorities Cited
- Gulf v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1897)
- Missouri v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1914)
- Missouri v. Harris, 234 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1914)
- Chicago v. Polt, 232 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1914)
- State of Ala. v. Schmidt, 232 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1914)
- Dell v. Marvin, 41 Fla. 221 (Fla. 1899)
- Phillips v. Atwell, 76 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1918)
- Nelson v. Selden Cypress Door Co., 78 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1919)