Rice v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Rice v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham

102 So. 700, 212 Ala. 352, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1925

Docket6 Div. 263.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 102 So. 700 (Rice v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham) 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

Rice v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham, 102 So. 700, 212 Ala. 352, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 12 (Ala. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While, as a general rule, the commissions allowed to executors and administrators, within or less than the maximum fixed by statute (Code, 1923, §§ 5923, 5924), is largely discretionary with the trial court (Collins v. Clements, 199 Ala. 618, 75 So. 165), this rule has exceptions, one of which is that if the estate is so large, and the administration of same does not require extraordinary service and trouble, the allowance by the trial court would afford more than fair compensation as contemplated by law, it is not only within the authority but is the duty of this court to correct or reduce such allowance. Noble v. Jackson, 124 Ala. 311, 26 So. 955; Kenan v. Graham, 135 Ala. 585, 33 So. 699. We are of the opinion, under the evidence which is practically undisputed, that, this being a very large estate and involving no extraordinary duties, the amount allowed the appellee by the lower court was excessive, and that $5,000 is reasonable for the labor and responsibility of the appellee. The decree of the trial court is corrected and affirmed for $5,000, without interest, and the cost of this appeal to be taxed against the appellee.

Corrected and affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J„ and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MIDLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

While, as a general rule, the commissions allowed to executors and administrators, within or less than the maximum fixed by statute (Code, 1923, §§ 5923, 5924), is largely discretionary with the trial court (Collins v. Clements, 199 Ala. 618, 75 So. 165), this rule has exceptions, one of which is that if the estate is so large, and the administration of same does not require extraordinary service and trouble, the allowance by the trial court would afford more than fair compensation as contemplated by law, it is not only within the authority but is the duty of this court to correct or reduce such allowance. Noble v. Jackson, 124 Ala. 311, 26 So. 955; Kenan v. Graham, 135 Ala. 585, 33 So. 699. We are of the opinion, under the evidence which is practically undisputed, that, this being a very large estate and involving no extraordinary duties, the amount allowed the appellee by the lower court was excessive, and that $5,000 is reasonable for the labor and responsibility of the appellee. The decree of the trial court is corrected and affirmed for $5,000, without interest, and the cost of this appeal to be taxed against the appellee.

Corrected and affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J„ and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MIDLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 700, 212 Ala. 352, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-first-nat-bank-of-birmingham-ala-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack