WALKER D. HINES, DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILROADS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MRS. NELLIE W. TAYLOR, DEFENDANT ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a judgment awarding damages for livestock killed on a railroad, including double damages and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the judgment in part, reducing the attorney's fee award from $47.50 to $36.25 because the double damages penalty provision did not apply to actions against the United States.
The double damages penalty provision of the livestock statute is not applicable to actions against the United States or its agents acting under federal authority, but the provision for a reasonable attorney's fee remains taxable as costs. A reasonable attorney's fee in this case was $36.25, consisting of $25.00 for pleadings plus 15% of the $75.00 recovery.
“This action being in effect against the United States by its permission pursuant to the Act of Congress of 1918 and the General Orders issued thereunder, the penalty portion of the statute is not applicable; but the provision for a reasonable attorney's fee is taxable as costs and not as a penalty.”
Establishes that federal immunity prevents application of double damages penalty, but attorney's fees remain recoverable as costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Nellie W. Taylor recovered a judgment against the railroad (acting under federal authority) for livestock killed on its tracks. The jury verdict …
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 Double Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Wills, Circuit Judge.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment for damages for live stock killed on a railroad. The verdict found the value of one animal to be $75.00, and of two others to be $45.00 each. The judgment awards double damages for the first and actual damages for the other two animals, and allowed $47.50 as attorney-fees. The statute in one class of cases allows the recovery of double damages and all costs, “which costs shall include a reasonable attorney’s fee, said fee to be determined by the court.” Sec. 1, Chap. 5214, Acts of 1903, S'ec. 2875, Compiled Laws, 1914. -
This action being in effect against the United States by its permission pursuant to the Act of Congress of 1918 and the General Orders issued thereunder,, the penalty portion of the statute is not applicable; but the provision for a reasonable attorney’s fee is taxable as costs and not as a penalty. Under the evidence a reasonable attorney’s fee was adjudged to be $25.00 for settling the pleadings, and 15% on the recovery. This would be $25.00 plus 15% of $75.00, making a total of $36.25 attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff below will be permitted to enter a remittitur for all the judgment except $75.00 for one animal and $45:00 eaoh for the other two animals, and $36.25 for attorney’s fees, besides court costs, upon which the judgment will stand affirmed for the amounts stated above. Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the judgment herein be and the same is hereby affirmed, upon the entering of a remittitur as stated in the opinion.
Browne, O'. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Burton Barrs, 87 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1924)…red in such case. As the statute here considered does not make attorney fees a part of the costs in a case to which the statute applies, and does not authorize attorney fees to be recovered as a part of the costs in the case, as in Hines v. Taylor, 79 Fla. 218, 84 South. Rep. 381; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sutton, 54 Fla. 247, 44 South. Rep. 946; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, 60 South. Rep. 353; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164, 31 L. R. A.…
-
The Dir. Gen. of Railroads v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1921)…l jurisdiction. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, text 488, 60 South. Rep. 353; Sumner Lumber Co. v. Mills, 64 Fla. 513, 60 South. Rep. 757. Double damages may not be recovered from the Director General of Railroads. See Hines v. Taylor, 79 Fla. 218, 84 South. Rep. 381. In an action for stock killed, after judgment it may be inferred from an ambiguous declaration that the several head of stock were killed at the same time and a proper claim of double damages may give the court jurisdiction. Ge…1 / 2
-
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1921)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence