BLOUNT BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. D. EILENBERGER, DEFENDANT IN 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 conditionally affirmed a judgment, allowing the plaintiff to remit a portion of the award related to attorney's fees to avoid a reversal.
Yes, the allowance of $1,000 for attorney's fees was erroneous. However, the judgment can be affirmed if the plaintiff agrees to remit this amount.
“Defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, having suggested by petition for re-hearing that leave be given him to enter a remittitur in the sum of One Thousand Dollars, being the sum allowed for attorney’s fees; and it appearing to the Court that there is no error in the judgment of the court below other than in the allowance of said sum as attorney’s fees as pointed out in Blount Brothers Realty Company v. Eilenberger, 124 So. R. 41;”
Establishes the procedural posture and the specific issue regarding attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, C.D. Eilenberger, was awarded a judgment of $14,805.94 plus $29.41 in costs and $1,000 in attorney's fees. The defendant, Blount Brothe…
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 Legal Rate Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, having suggested by petition for re-hearing that leave be given him to enter a remittitur in the sum of One Thousand Dollars, being the sum allowed for attorney’s fees; and it appearing to the Court that there is no error in the judgment of the court below other than in the allowance of said sum as attorney’s fees as pointed out in Blount Brothers Realty Company v. Eilenberger, 124 So. R. 41;
It is upon consideration of said petition for re-hearing ordered that if the defendant in error, plaintiff below, within ten days from the date upon which the mandate of this Court is filed in the trial court, shall enter a remittitur in the sum of One Thousand Dollars as of the date of the rendition of said judgment in the trial court, to-wit: February 23, 1928, the remainder of said judgment in amount of $14,805.94, with the costs assessed therein in the sum of $29.41, shall stand affirmed with interest at the legal rate from the date of the entry of said judgment, to-wit, February 23, 1928. It is further ordered that all costs upon this writ of error be paid by defendant in error, plaintiff below.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berns v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1105 (Fla. 1930)…recovery and establish the basis for computation or determination of the amount. U. S. Savings Bank v. Pittman, 80 Fla. 423, 86. So. R. 567; Brett v. First Nat. Bank of Marianna, 97, Fla. 284, 120 So. R. 554; Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 779, 124 So. R. 284. As to the contention of Annie N. Gibbons, it is noted that the bill of complaint alleges and her deed filed in evidence shows that she and her husband (now deceased) accepted a deed from a grantee of mortgagors in which they assume…
-
Arley M. Hatch v. Maud Barr Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169 (Fla. 1930)…hat the mortgagee- or payee shall be at no expense in procuring legal services. Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 So. R. 554; U. S. Savings Bank v. Pittman, 80 Fla. 423, 86 So. R. 567; Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 779, 124 So. R. 41; Sun City Holding Co. v. Schoenfeld, 97 Fla. 777, 122 So. R. 252; 1 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.) Sec. 442; 8 C. J. 1101, Sec. 1436. The master’s report contains no evidence as to attorney’s fees, and no testimony appears to have been…
-
Millard v. Brannan, 553 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…s court’s denial of attorney’s fees as to Millard. A review of the early cases in Florida reflects that a claim for attorney’s fees must be pleaded specifically. Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 775, 124 So. 41 (1929), reh’g granted, 98 Fla. 779, 124 So. 284 (1930) (a claim for attorney’s fees based on a contractual provision); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Dickerson, 82 Fla. 442, 90 So. 613 (1921) (a claim for attorney’s fees provided for by statute); Price v. Boden, 39 Fla. 218, 22 So. 6…
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