Carl J. Batter v. Columbus Jefferson (Joe) Williams

Fifth Circuit

Carl J. Batter v. Columbus Jefferson (Joe) Williams

316 F.2d 540, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1963

Docket19945_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 540 (Carl J. Batter v. Columbus Jefferson (Joe) Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl J. Batter v. Columbus Jefferson (Joe) Williams, 316 F.2d 540, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a dismissal of his complaint for failure to- meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy. Although appellant alleged that his claim exceeded $10,000, it appears to a legal certainty after examining the complaint in its entirety that the plaintiff could not proceed to a judgment for an amount necessary to the jurisdiction of the district court. See Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U.S. 468, 18 S.Ct. 645, 42 L.Ed. 1111.

Appellant sought attorney’s fees from the appellee, claiming $15,280.96. From the allegations of the complaint, this sum consisted of $5,280.96, representing services actually rendered, and $10,000' which represented an amount that plaintiff claims he would have been entitled to had he not been discharged by the defendant prior to the termination of what plaintiff claims was the agreed upon employment. Appellant’s contract with appellee provided he would be given “all his out-of-pocket expenses, a per diem rate for time devoted to the cause and a fee at the conclusion of the services.” It was this “fee at the conclusion of the services” that was the basis of the $10,000 claim.

The rule in Florida, the law governing the case at bar, is that an attorney may recover for damages for breach of contract for attorney’s fees when the *541 client discharges him without cause only if there is a definite agreed upon fee. Where there is no agreement as to a fixed fee the attorney will only be allowed to recover in quantum meruit for services already rendered. See Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538 (1938); Osius v. Hastings, 97 So.2d 623 (Ct. of App.Fla.1957).

Since there was no fixed fee in this case, the above rule would preclude the appellant from recovering anything other than the $5,280 in quantum meruit. Thus the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint on grounds of insufficient jurisdictional amount in controversy is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a dismissal of his complaint for failure to- meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy. Although appellant alleged that his claim exceeded $10,000, it appears to a legal certainty after examining the complaint in its entirety that the plaintiff could not proceed to a judgment for an amount necessary to the jurisdiction of the district court. See Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U.S. 468, 18 S.Ct. 645, 42 L.Ed. 1111.

Appellant sought attorney’s fees from the appellee, claiming $15,280.96. From the allegations of the complaint, this sum consisted of $5,280.96, representing services actually rendered, and $10,000' which represented an amount that plaintiff claims he would have been entitled to had he not been discharged by the defendant prior to the termination of what plaintiff claims was the agreed upon employment. Appellant’s contract with appellee provided he would be given “all his out-of-pocket expenses, a per diem rate for time devoted to the cause and a fee at the conclusion of the services.” It was this “fee at the conclusion of the services” that was the basis of the $10,000 claim.

The rule in Florida, the law governing the case at bar, is that an attorney may recover for damages for breach of contract for attorney’s fees when the *541 client discharges him without cause only if there is a definite agreed upon fee. Where there is no agreement as to a fixed fee the attorney will only be allowed to recover in quantum meruit for services already rendered. See Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538 (1938); Osius v. Hastings, 97 So.2d 623 (Ct. of App.Fla.1957).

Since there was no fixed fee in this case, the above rule would preclude the appellant from recovering anything other than the $5,280 in quantum meruit. Thus the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint on grounds of insufficient jurisdictional amount in controversy is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 540, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-j-batter-v-columbus-jefferson-joe-williams-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack