C. H. BROOKS, JEAN BROOKS, HIS WIFE, F. S. SCOTT, S. C. RANDALL AND J. C. STAUFFER, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDGAR A. ROBERTS, JOHN T. BIZE, H. S. HAMPTON, D. H. LANEY, C. E. RANSOM, JR., AND HIS WIFE, AGNES RANSOM, H. R. SPECKMAN AND HIS WIFE, ALICE SPECKMAN, APPELLEES
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 decree that included a solicitor's fee, finding it erroneous due to a lack of evidence supporting the amount. The court affirmed the decree in part but remanded for a determination of the agreed-upon fee.
No, the decree was erroneous in allowing the solicitor's fee because there was no evidence presented to show the complainants had agreed to pay such a sum. However, the decree should be affirmed in all other respects.
“The decree appealed from is erroneous in so far as it allows a solicitor’s fee -of $3,100.13.”
Identifies the specific error in the lower court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants appealed a decree that included a solicitor's fee of $3,100.13. The appellees appeared and filed a brief. The appeal was filed after a spec…
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.
Ellis, J.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, which was made subsequently to the enactment óf Chapter 11890 Laws of Florida 1927, was deferred until the final hearing and the appellees appeared by counsel and filed a brief.
. The decree appealed from is erroneous in so far as it allows a solicitor’s fee -of $3,100.13. There was no evidence to show that the complainants had agreed to pay their solicitor such sum for his services in the cause. See H. J. Brett v. The First National Bank of Marianna, decided at the present term. -In other respects the decree should be affirmed.
It is ordered that the Chancellor may take the testimony of the complainants as to the amount of solicitor’s fees agreed by them to be paid by them to their solicitor for his services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree from which the appeal was taken. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Strum, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mallard v. Ewing, 121 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1935)…ervices the sum allowed by the chancellor below. The burden is upon him who seeks to recover damages to prove that he is entitled to such recovery and to establish the basis for the computation or determination of the amount.” See Brooks v. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374, 120 South. Rep. 765. The testimony of the complainant shows that he did not [*666] obligate himself to pay his solicitor for the service to be performed. He said there was “No verbal conversation about it.” How then could there be an agreement bet…
-
Sarasota Publ'g Co. v. E. C. Palmer & Co., Ltd., 102 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1931)
-
Holmes v. Dunning, 101 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1931)…isions relating to the allowance of fees to complainant for his solicitor, and upon the decree being so modified and entered, that the same stand affirmed. See Brett vs. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 Sou. 554; Brooks vs. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374, 120 Sou. 765; Hatch vs. Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169, 128 Sou. 420; Wright vs. Merdes, 98 Fla. 859, 124 Sou. 448. Affirmed with directions to reform the decree. Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence