From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Butler

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 3, 1906
73 S.C. 402 (S.C. 1906)

Opinion

March 3, 1906.

Before PRINCE, J., Saluda, April, 1905. Affirmed.

Action by Henry Butler et al. against Lucinda Butler et al. Plaintiffs appeal from Circuit decree.

Messrs. Able Blease, for appellants, cite: 13 S.C. 445; 25 S.C. 505.

Mr. Wm. N. Graydon, contra, cites: 24 S.C. 238; 13 S.C. 445; 21 S.C. 162; 24 S.C. 239; 25 S.C. 200, 496; 36 S.C. 25; 60 Am. St. R., 510; 27 L.R.A., 99; 105 U.S. 533.


March 3, 1906. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


The brothers and sisters and the nephews and nieces of Silas Butler brought this action for partition against his widow. Partition in kind having been found impracticable, the land was sold by order of the Court. The master reported that attorneys for plaintiff should be allowed a fee of $250 for their services in the partition suit, to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of land before distribution. Upon exception to this recommendation of the master, the Circuit Judge held there was no warrant for the allowance of a fee to the attorneys for the plaintiffs out of the common fund. The precise point was decided in Westmoreland v. Martin, 24 S.C. 238.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.


Summaries of

Butler v. Butler

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 3, 1906
73 S.C. 402 (S.C. 1906)
Case details for

Butler v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:BUTLER v. BUTLER

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Mar 3, 1906

Citations

73 S.C. 402 (S.C. 1906)
53 S.E. 646

Citing Cases

Lawton v. New York Life Insurance Co.

There are not many cases in our Courts bearing on the matter of attorney's fees. In the case of Butler v.…

Erwin v. Williams et al

Mr. J.M. Nickles, of Abbeville, for appellant, cites: Asto rights of creditor of estate: 108 S.C. 130, 93…