Hart v. Florida Discount Corporation

Supreme Court of Florida

Hart v. Florida Discount Corporation

120 So. 765, 97 Fla. 328

DecidedMarch 9, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 765 (Hart v. Florida Discount Corporation) 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

Hart v. Florida Discount Corporation, 120 So. 765, 97 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*329 Per Curiam.

This cause having- heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said decree in so far as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $500.00. Breet v. The First National Bank of Marianna; Brooks v. Roberts, decided at this term. It is ordered that the chancellor may duly take testimony for the complainants as to the amount of solicitor’s fees agreed by them to be paid to their solicitor for his services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from. Decree affirmed in other respects.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

*329 Per Curiam.

This cause having- heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said decree in so far as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $500.00. Breet v. The First National Bank of Marianna; Brooks v. Roberts, decided at this term. It is ordered that the chancellor may duly take testimony for the complainants as to the amount of solicitor’s fees agreed by them to be paid to their solicitor for his services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from. Decree affirmed in other respects.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 765, 97 Fla. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-florida-discount-corporation-fla-1929.