CHAS. M. WILHELM, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN ADAMS, DOING BUSINESS AS WORLD ELECTRIC, AND HENRY R. CHASE, AND GEORGE H. WHITE, 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.
Wilhelm appeals from an order taxing costs equally between complainant and defendant in an equity suit. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, holding that chancellors have discretion to apportion costs in equity cases based on circumstances of justice, and absent a clear record showing abuse of discretion, the appellate court will not disturb the order.
The court affirmed the cost order, holding that chancellors have sound discretion in equity cases to apportion costs based on circumstances of justice and the particular facts, and absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion supported by an adequate record, appellate courts will not disturb such orders.
“The general rule in regard to costs is, that they follow the result of a suit. In a court of equity this rule is departed from, when the failing party can show to the court any circumstances which would render it unjust that he should pay the costs of the proceedings.”
Establishes the foundational rule that costs normally follow the result, but equity courts may deviate when justice requires it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilhelm was the complainant in an equity suit against John Adams (doing business as World Electric), Henry R. Chase, and George H. White. A master fil…
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
— The appeal here is from an order taxing the costs one-half against the complainant in the court below and the other half against the defendant in the court below. Appellant here was complainant in the court below. The transcript of record recites the filing of various instruments from the filing of bill of; complaint to and including the recital that general master filed his report of testimony together with exhibits. Then follows copies of certain findings of the Master and order of Court and final decree. The last decree is an order amending the final decree, by adding the words
“That the costs of said suit shall be borne and taxed, *670one-half by the complainant, Chas. M. Wilhelm, and one-half by the defendant John Adams.”
It is impossible for the Court to determine from the record here what facts actuated the chancellor in entering a decree taxing one-half the costs against the complainant and the other half against the defendant.
In Moyers v. Coiner, 22 Fla. 422, this Court approving what was said in Lewis vs. Gray, 14 Fla. 441, said:
“The general rule in regard to costs is, that they follow the result of a suit. In a court of equity this rule is departed from, when the failing party can show to the court any circumstances which would render it unjust that he should pay the costs of the proceedings. ’ ’
Again, in Wade vs. Murrhee, 75 Fla. 494, 78 Sou. 536, Mr. Justice West, speaking for the Court said:
“In equity causes costs are awarded in the sound discretion of the court as justice may require in the particular case, and the appellate court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is made to appear.”
So it appears that the rule is well settled that in equity causes it is within the province of the chancellor to make an order pro-rating the costs, if there appear facts or circumstances which would render it inequitable and unjust to require the losing party to pay the entire cost. This is a matter which is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and, without having before us a transcript of the record upon which he based his conclusions in this regard, we certainly cannot assume to say that he abused that discretion.
The decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
News-Journal Corp. v. Gore, 147 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1941)…iff. Even assuming the correctness of the position that the witness was not one designated by the court we cannot say the chancellor erred in taxing the cost as he did. This was a discretionary matter and no abuse is shown. Wilhelm v. Adams, et al., 102 Fla. 669, 136 So. 397. Finally, we consider the propriety of that part of the final decree ordering sale of the corporate property and liquidation of the assets. So far we have agreed with the chancellor in the main. It is here that our opinion differs from…
-
Cora Akins v. L. B. Bethea & the Perry Baking Co., 160 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1948)…now makes such action necessary. See Williams v. Hilton, 25 Fla. 608, 6 So. 452. It has long been a fundamental rule of equity jurisprudence that in a chancery cause costs should be awarded as the justice of the case may require. Wilhelm v. Adams, 102 Fla. 669, 136 So. 397; News Journal Corporation v. Gore, 147 Fla. [*102] 217, 2 So. (2nd) 741. Accordingly, a court of equity, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, may decree that the costs shall follow the result of the suit; may apportion the co…
-
Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…in part. . See, Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). . Absent the agreement, the court would have discretion to deny costs to either side in an equitable action like this. Wilhelm v. Adams, 102 Fla. 669, 136 So. 397 (1931); International Center of the Americas, Inc. v. Dade Fashions, Inc., 391 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). .Consistent with this holding, we have granted the motion for attorney’s fees on appeal and assessed the sum of $15,000.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wade v. Murrhee, 75 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1918)
- Moyers v. Coiner, 22 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1886)