Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Central Trust Co.

75 So. 330, 200 Ala. 18, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 270
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 26, 1917
Docket3 Div. 266.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 75 So. 330 (Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Central Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Central Trust Co., 75 So. 330, 200 Ala. 18, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 270 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

The questions raised by this appeal concern the amount of allowances to the receiver, his attorney, and the trustee in the deed of trust made to secure appellant’s indebtedness.

[1] The chancellor had the right, if he concluded the justice of the matter so required, to look to the whole record, including the register’s report and the evidence taken on the reference, and make what decree he deemed just in respect to the contested items, and this court has the same right. Horst v. Pake, 195 Ala. 620, 71 South. 430; Faulk v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 South. 450.

L2, 3] The presumption on this appeal is that the register was right. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 South. 767. However, it is competent for the court, in the case of questions of the sort here presented, questions as to the value of services rendered, to exercise its independent judgment and determine the contested items upon consideration of the whole case as developed on the record. The court is not bound to accept the opinions of witnesses in such matters. Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 39 South. 512; Robinson v. Crotwell, 175 Ala. 194, 57 South. 23.

'After due consideration the court has determined the items in dispute as follows: To the receiver, $300; to the receiver’s attorney, $250; to the trustee, $375. One-half the *19 costs of this appeal will be divided between, the receiver and. the trustee; one-half will be taxed against the appellant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. X, and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, J.T., concur.

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

Related

Walker v. Walker
54 So. 2d 281 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Frazer v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
178 So. 441 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Willett Willett v. First Nat. Bank of Anniston
176 So. 344 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon
153 So. 755 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Chambers
146 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Hatch
127 So. 173 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Buttrey v. Buttrey
118 So. 282 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Dent v. Foy
107 So. 210 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Hill v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co.
104 So. 251 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Lowe v. Reed
92 So. 467 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 So. 330, 200 Ala. 18, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-light-heat-power-co-v-central-trust-co-ala-1917.