H. O. HART AND WILLA L. HART, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA DISCOUNT CORPORATION, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; PALM BEACH BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; OREL J. MYERS, AS RECEIVER OF PALM BEACH BANK & TRUST COMPANY; MELBOURNE STATE BANK, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree in part but reversed the award of a $500 solicitor's fee, remanding for a determination of the actual agreed-upon fee.
The court held that the $500 solicitor's fee was erroneous. The decree should be amended to reflect the actual amount agreed upon by the complainants for their solicitor's services.
“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.”
Identifies the specific error found by the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal of a decree from a lower court. The appellants, H. O. Hart and Willa L. Hart, challenged the decree issued by the Florida …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*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.