From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 20, 1920
85 So. 539 (Ala. 1920)

Opinion

6 Div. 74.

May 20, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Percy, Benners Burr, of Birmingham, for appellants.

Section 3010, Code 1907, contemplates the ascertainment of the solicitor's fee after the work is done, and not before, and under the facts in this case the fee is excessive. 98 Ala. 470, 13 So. 368; 2 R. C. L. 1059; 119 La. 236, 43 So. 1018; 219 Ill. 310, 76 N.E. 378; 106 Ark. 571, 153 S.W. 820; 105 U.S. 47, 26 L.Ed. 1028; 191 Ala. 195, 67 So. 985.

F. E. St. John, of Cullman, for appellees.

The matter of attorney's fee is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and will not be disturbed, unless abused. Section 3010, Code 1907; 191 Ala. 201, 67 So. 985.


Appellants seek a reversal of the decree of the court below only upon the question of the excessiveness of the fee allowed for complainants' solicitor. It is insisted that, while the evidence of the attorneys testifying in the cause is without dispute, the fee allowed was a reasonable and proper sum as customarily charged for services of such nature, yet this was not binding upon the court, citing Lee v. Lomax, 219 Ill. 218, 76 N.E. 377; Dinkelspiel v. Pons, 119 La. 236, 43 So. 1018; Lilly v. Robinson, 106 Ark. 571, 153 S.W. 820, and a vigorous attack is made in argument here presented upon the amount of the fee upon the ground of excessiveness.

That the services of counsel for complainants were for the benefit of the common estate, and properly payable out of the funds from the proceeds of sale under the provisions of section 3010 of the Code of 1907, is not questioned, but only the amount thereof as being excessive. As said by this court in Bidwell v. Johnson, 191 Ala. 195, 67 So. 985, the trial court should exercise the greatest caution in fixing allowance of attorney's fees in matters of this character, that no injustice be done; but at the same time the wording of the statute has clearly indicated that much must be left to sound judicial discretion.

We may concede for the purpose of this case much of the argument of counsel for appellants, and that neither this court nor the court below will be necessarily bound by the opinion evidence presented in the cause; yet we are not persuaded that under the circumstances here presented the decree should be disturbed. The witnesses were examined in regular form, after due notice given counsel for respondents, and the testimony regularly taken and proof made without dispute as to the proper allowance to be paid the solicitor for complainants for his services in the cause. Respondents did not question this proof at that time or subsequently, offering no testimony to the contrary, and when the final decree was rendered recognizing this amount as a proper charge for solicitor's fees, no objection seems to have been made thereto, or attempt to have a reconsideration of that question by the court. A sale of the property was had under the decree. The report of the register was confirmed and the proceeds distributed before any objections were filed by respondents to the allowance of this fee as excessive. The objections filed do not appear to have been brought to the attention of the court, and were subsequently withdrawn. All the parties to this cause were sui juris; the interest of no minor being involved. The proceedings in the cause as above outlined clearly indicated to the trial court that if the amount of compensation to be allowed the solicitor for complainants had not been agreed upon, it was at least acquiesced in and considered unobjectionable.

In reviewing the trial court upon this question of fact, a matter in which much discretion was vested in the court, this court should also prudently exercise a degree of discretion; and, while we do not wish to be considered as having approved the amount allowed in this particular case as upon an original consideration thereof, yet under the circumstances shown above we are of the opinion the decree in this respect should not now be disturbed, and the same will therefore be accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and BROWN JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Butler v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 20, 1920
85 So. 539 (Ala. 1920)
Case details for

Butler v. Fuller

Case Details

Full title:BUTLER et al. v. FULLER et al

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 20, 1920

Citations

85 So. 539 (Ala. 1920)
85 So. 539

Citing Cases

Dent v. Foy

The report of the register has the weight of the verdict of a jury, and his findings should be confirmed,…

Graham v. Graham

The court was only authorized to allow attorney's fees for services beneficial to all the parties. 204 Ala.…