Gibson v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

142 F. Supp. 773, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3199
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedJuly 23, 1956
DocketCiv. A. No. 1291
StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. Supp. 773 (Gibson v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gibson v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 142 F. Supp. 773, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3199 (S.D. Miss. 1956).

Opinion

Benjamin C. DAWKINS, Jr., Chief Judge.

Plaintiff sued defendant in this Court for tort damages. His employer’s workmen’s compensation insurer, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, intervened in the suit to recover benefits paid to or for plaintiff, under the Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation Statute Code 1942, § 6998-01 et seq., totaling $5,996.08.

The jury awarded plaintiff $25,000, in a verdict returned on June 13, 1953. Court costs totaled $168.46.

[774]*774No appeal was taken, and on July 23, 1953, Mr. Dan T. McCall, one of defendant’s attorneys, mailed to the Deputy Clerk at Biloxi a draft in the sum of $25,168.46, made by United States Casualty Company, defendant’s liability insurer, in payment of the judgment on the verdict.

On July 27, 1953, one of plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Donald W. Cumbest, wrote a letter to Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States District Judge, who had presided at the trial, in the following words and figures:

“Donald W. Cumbest
“Attorney-at-Law
“Courthouse Building : :
Office Phone 1453
“Pascagoula, Mississippi
“July 27, 1953
“Hon. Sidney C. Mize
“Judge U. S. District Court
“Gulfport, Mississippi
“Re: John W. Gibson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
“Dear Judge Mize:
“I have re-written the order in the above styled cause and herewith submit same for your approval.
“The total amount due the intervenor, who is represented by Mr. Merle Palmer, is $5,996.08. However, Mr. Palmer agreed to pay us ths sum of $300.00 for maintaining the suit. You will note that the $300.00 was to be paid to the plaintiff by the intervenor and has been deducted from the sum due said intervenor, leaving a balance due said intervenor in the sum of $5,696.08.
“You will also note that I am asking that the balance due the plaintiff be made payable to the plaintiff and myself. I did not include Mr. W. C. Rodgers, my associate in this case, in the order, for the reason he called me last night and asked me to do this in order that he would not have to come down here and sign the draft. He just asked me to send his division of the fee.
“Again thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and with kindest regards and best wishes, I remain,
“Sincerely yours,
“/s/ Donald W. Cumbest
“Donald W. Cumbest
“DWC/ek
enclosure”

On the next day, July 28, 1953, Judge Mize signed the order apparently referred to in the letter, reading as follows:

“Order Disbursing Payment to Plaintiff and Intervenor
“This cause came on for hearing on motion of plaintiff to disburse the proceeds of the draft issued by the United States Casualty Company in the amount of $25,168.46 representing satisfaction of the judgment in the above styled cause.
“It appearing to the court that the intervenor, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, would be entitled to the sum of $5,996.08, the amount the intervenor sued for in their petition with the balance of $19,172.38 to the plaintiff. However, the intervenor, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, is willing to allow plaintiff the sum of $300.00 as cost for collection. Hence, the sum of $5,696.08 is to be paid to the intervenor, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, after deducting the said $300.00 from the total amount due them in the sum of $5,996.08 and the plaintiff to receive the sum of $19,472.38 which includes the sum of $300.00 granted by the intervenor as above mentioned.
“By agreement of counsel for plaintiff and intervenor it is agreed the sum of $300.00 is a fair and reasonable cost of collection in this suit and after said deduction the intervenor is to receive the sum of $5,-696.08.
“It further appearing that intervenor assigns plaintiff any interest that said intervenor is entitled.
[775]*775“It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the intervenor, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company and Merle F. Palmer, their attorney, is to be paid the sum of $5,696.08 and the balance of $19,-472.38 to be paid to the plaintiff, John W. Gibson, and his attorney, Donald W. Cumbest. * * *”

On July 29, 1953, the Clerk, Miss Loryce E. Wharton, deposited the draft for $25,168.46 in the “Registry Fund of Court” account at the First National Bank, Jackson, Mississippi. Evidently the draft was paid a few days later. On August 3, 1953, Miss Wharton issued checks, in exact accordance with Mr. Cumbest’s letter and the order of July 28, 1953, as follows:

1. No. 5136, dated August 3rd, 1953, payable to the order of American Mutual Liability Insurance Company and Merle F. Palmer, their attorney, in the sum of $5,696.08.

2. No. 5137, dated August 3rd, 1953, payable to the order of John W. Gibson and his attorney, Donald W. Cumbest, in the sum of $19,-472.38.

These checks were transmitted to the respective attorneys, who also were sent copies of the Clerk’s transmittal letters, on August 3, 1953. The checks were accepted as being correct in all respects, and were cashed by the payees.

Nearly thirty-two months later, on March 26,1956, Mr. Cumbest filed a “Motion for Allowance of Attorney’s Fee”, wherein it is alleged that he and his associate counsel, Mr. W. C. Rogers, are entitled under Mississippi law to an attorney’s fee, to be paid by intervenor, of one-third of the amount recovered by intervenor in the judgment, or approximately $1,900. They pray for a decree to that effect. In an amended motion, filed on June 19, 1956, Mr. Cumbest alleges that he and Mr. Rogers had no prior knowledge of the provision in the decree of July 28, 1953, for the allowance of $300 to plaintiff- “ * * * for cost of collection for the sum collected by Movants for the Defendants * * *” (in motion); and denies that there was any agreement “* * * between counsel and intervenor ***”***• * * that the sum of $300.00 was a fair and reasonable cost of collection * * *». -x- * * «* * * that evi_ dently there was a misrepresentation to the Court or at least the Court was not fully apprised of the Movant’s rights under the Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation Law, inasmuch as same allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee for collecting for Intervenor and Defendants herein”. No express allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake are made in the motion.

Movants rely on provisions of the Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation Law, Title 25, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6998-36 of the Mississippi Code of 1942, reading as follows:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F. Supp. 773, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-coca-cola-bottling-co-mssd-1956.