Huff v. Arkansas Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Huff v. Arkansas Trust Co.

219 S.W.2d 614, 215 Ark. 137, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 702

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 18, 1949

Docket4-8846

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.W.2d 614 (Huff v. Arkansas Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huff v. Arkansas Trust Co., 219 S.W.2d 614, 215 Ark. 137, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 702 (Ark. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

By direct appeal C. Floyd Huff challenges as insufficient an allowance of $5,000 as attorney's fee, while executors and others insist in their cross-appeal that $3,500 is enough.¹

The Court's understanding of the record, familiarity of the Judge with successive transactions and activities, his knowledge respecting the capable men who in evaluating services testified for each side, — these considerations and a review of the abstract persuade us that in exercising the discretion with which the trial Court was *Page 138 invested, no abuse has been shown; nor was the judgment contrary to a preponderance of the evidence. Jacoway v. Hall, 67 Ark. 340, 55 S.W. 12; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Fleenor, 104 Ark. 119, 148 S.W. 650.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HOLT concurs.

Mr. Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH not participating.

¹ The decree directing payment of the fee is against Arkansas Trust Company and Q. Byrum Hurst, as co-executors of the estate of D.C. Richards, and Cooper B. Land, as Administrator [of the Richards estate] with the will annexed.

HOLT, J., concurring. The record in this case is voluminous. Many witnesses testified for the parties and their evidence was conflicting. A fact question alone was presented.

The record before us was made in the Probate Court and on appeal here from the judgment, we try the cause de novo just as on Chancery appeals, and under our long established rules we must affirm unless we should determine that the lower court's findings and judgment are against the preponderance of all the evidence.

As I read the record, no issue was presented on whether the trial court abused its discretion in arriving at the judgment rendered. It is not for us to determine whether the court abused its discretion, that not being an issue. What we should and do determine is, solely in this case, where does the preponderance of the testimony lie.

The majority opinion appears to me to be contradictory by basing its decision on either the court's discretion or on the preponderance of the evidence rule. I think our holding should be that the findings of the court are not against the preponderance of the evidence and for this reason alone, the judgment should be affirmed. *Page 139

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

By direct appeal C. Floyd Huff challenges as insufficient an allowance of $5,000 as attorney's fee, while executors and others insist in their cross-appeal that $3,500 is enough.¹

The Court's understanding of the record, familiarity of the Judge with successive transactions and activities, his knowledge respecting the capable men who in evaluating services testified for each side, — these considerations and a review of the abstract persuade us that in exercising the discretion with which the trial Court was *Page 138 invested, no abuse has been shown; nor was the judgment contrary to a preponderance of the evidence. Jacoway v. Hall, 67 Ark. 340, 55 S.W. 12; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Fleenor, 104 Ark. 119, 148 S.W. 650.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HOLT concurs.

Mr. Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH not participating.

¹ The decree directing payment of the fee is against Arkansas Trust Company and Q. Byrum Hurst, as co-executors of the estate of D.C. Richards, and Cooper B. Land, as Administrator [of the Richards estate] with the will annexed.

HOLT, J., concurring. The record in this case is voluminous. Many witnesses testified for the parties and their evidence was conflicting. A fact question alone was presented.

The record before us was made in the Probate Court and on appeal here from the judgment, we try the cause de novo just as on Chancery appeals, and under our long established rules we must affirm unless we should determine that the lower court's findings and judgment are against the preponderance of all the evidence.

As I read the record, no issue was presented on whether the trial court abused its discretion in arriving at the judgment rendered. It is not for us to determine whether the court abused its discretion, that not being an issue. What we should and do determine is, solely in this case, where does the preponderance of the testimony lie.

The majority opinion appears to me to be contradictory by basing its decision on either the court's discretion or on the preponderance of the evidence rule. I think our holding should be that the findings of the court are not against the preponderance of the evidence and for this reason alone, the judgment should be affirmed. *Page 139

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.2d 614, 215 Ark. 137, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-arkansas-trust-co-ark-1949.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack