W. M. CATHRAE, ET AL.,
v.
F. M. FORD, ET AL.
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 affirmed a circuit court decree in a partition action but reversed the allowance of an attorney's fee, finding the partition statute did not apply. The court modified the decree by removing the fee before affirming it.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the partition statute did not control the case and, therefore, the circuit court erred in allowing a fee to the plaintiff's attorney. The Court affirmed the decree after omitting the attorney's fee.
“it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree, except as to the allowance therein of a fee to plaintiff's attorney, a majority of the Court being of the opinion that this cause is not controlled by the partition statute.”
This quote explains the court's finding of error regarding the attorney's fee and the reason for it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a partition action where the circuit court entered a decree that included an allowance for the plaintiff's attorney's fee. The parti…
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.
This cause having heretofore béen' submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the *698respective 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 no error in the said decree, except as to the allowance therein of a fee to plaintiff’s attorney, a majority of the Court being of the opinion that this cause is not controlled by the partition statute.' It is therefore considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court, after omission of the allowance of a fee to plaintiff’s attorney, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs of appeal shall be taxed in equal amounts against the respective parties appellants and appellees.
So ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.