Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

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.

ELLIS, J. —

The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, which was made subsequently to the enactment of 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BROOKS ET AL. v. ROBERTS ET AL
(Mar 19, 1929)