George v. Bank of Waldo

Supreme Court of Florida

George v. Bank of Waldo

144 So. 323, 107 Fla. 123

DecidedOctober 22, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 323 (George v. Bank of Waldo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George v. Bank of Waldo, 144 So. 323, 107 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said *124 Order except in this, that the declaration was' amended during the trial without notice to the defendant, a default judgment having been entered, by inserting therein the following language, to-wit:

“And the plaintiff avers that it has agreed and become obligated to its attorneys to pay them such reasonable fees as may be found and adjudged to be reasonable by the Court.”

Without this amendment, plaintiff would not have been entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Pursuant to the amendment judgment was entered including $300.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

Now, if the plaintiff shall enter in the ■ court below within ten days after the filing of the mandate therein remittitur in the sum of $300.00 the remainder of the judgment shall stand affirmed for the amount of such remainder as of the date of the entry thereof; otherwise the ease shall stand reversed for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Buford, O.J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said *124 Order except in this, that the declaration was' amended during the trial without notice to the defendant, a default judgment having been entered, by inserting therein the following language, to-wit:

“And the plaintiff avers that it has agreed and become obligated to its attorneys to pay them such reasonable fees as may be found and adjudged to be reasonable by the Court.”

Without this amendment, plaintiff would not have been entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Pursuant to the amendment judgment was entered including $300.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

Now, if the plaintiff shall enter in the ■ court below within ten days after the filing of the mandate therein remittitur in the sum of $300.00 the remainder of the judgment shall stand affirmed for the amount of such remainder as of the date of the entry thereof; otherwise the ease shall stand reversed for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Buford, O.J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 So. 323, 107 Fla. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-bank-of-waldo-fla-1932.