H. H. GODWIN, ADA E. GODWIN AND J. E. BLACKBURN, APPELLANTS,
v.
FORT MEADE BUILDING, LOAN AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a decree and found errors regarding solicitor's fees, abstract costs, and a judgment amount. The Court remanded the case with instructions to amend the decree by removing these unsupported charges.
The Court held that the decree contained errors in allowing a solicitor's fee of $201.00, an abstract cost of $25.00, and a judgment of $58.25, as these were not supported by the pleadings or proof.
“there is error in said decree in so far as it allows a solicitor's fee of $201.00.”
Identifies a 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 intelligenceThe case was submitted on a transcript of the record, briefs, and arguments. The Court found that the bill of complaint lacked sufficient allegations …
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.
Buford, J.
cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in said decree in so far as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $201.00. Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna; Brooks v. Roberts, both decided at the January term of court.
The allegations of the bill of complaint are insufficient to constitute a basis of decree for solicitor’s fees. It-also appears that the items for abstract $25.00, and the judgment $58.25, making a total of $83.25 are not supported by the pleadings or proof.
For the reasons stated the cause is remanded with direction that the Chancellor amend the decree by eliminating the sum of $201.00 allowed for solicitor’s fees and the sum of $25.00 for abstract and the sum of $58.25 for judgment and that the decree so amended will stand affirmed.
It is so ordered that the cost of this appeal be taxed agáinst the appellee.
The decree affirmed in part and remanded.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruff v. Guar. Title & Tr. Co., 99 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1930)…granted. Randall v. Twitchell, 124 So. R. 21, 98 Fla. 559, and authorities therein cited ; Johnson v. Johnson, 91 Fla. 275, text 280, 107 So. R. 342; Williams v. State, 97 Fla. 876, 122 So. R. 523; Godwin v. Fort Meade Bldg., Loan & Savings Ass’n., 98 Fla. 110, 123 So. R. 521; Sections 4639 and 4965 Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927. The appellants have assigned as error, first the making and entering of the order confirming sale and second the making and entering of the order denying the petition f…