Supreme Court of Florida, 1931

Szold v. Sickler

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided July 5, 1931 · Whitfield, Terrell, Davis, Buford, Brown, Ellis

133 So. 559; 101 Fla. 1495 (Southern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Richardson v. South Florida Mortgage Co. (Fla. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In foreclosure proceedings a decree was rendered for the complainant. No error is made to appear except an allowance for attorney fees.

‘ ‘ There is no • allegatioñ in the bill of complaint nor any evidence to show that the complainant had any agreement whatever with his solicitor as to the compensation he should receive for his services in the cause. It is ordered that the cause be, and the same is hereby remanded with directions to the chancellor to reform the decree, by striking therefrom the provisions relating to the allowance of fees to complainant for his solicitor, and upon the decree being so modified and entered, that the same stand affirmed. See Brett V. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 So. 554; Brooks v. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374, 120 So. 765;.Hatch v. Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169, 128 So. 420; Wright v. Merdes, 98 Fla. 859, 120 So. 448. ’’ Holmes v. Dunning, filed at this term.

Affirmed with directions to reform the decree.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. ■. Buford, C.J., and Brown and Ellis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.