From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Jan 3, 1930
124 So. 284 (Fla. 1930)

Opinion

Opinion filed January 3, 1930.


Defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, having suggested by petition for re-hearing that leave be given him to enter a remittitur in the sum of One Thousand Dollars, being the sum allowed for attorney's fees; and it appearing to the Court that there is no error in the judgment of the court below other than in the allowance of said sum as attorney's fees as pointed out in Blount Brothers Realty Company v. Eilenberger, 124 So. R. 41;

It is upon consideration of said petition for re-hearing ordered that if the defendant in error, plaintiff below, within ten days from the date upon which the mandate of this Court is filed in the trial court, shall enter a remittitur in the sum of One Thousand Dollars as of the date of the rendition of said judgment in the trial court, to-wit: February 23, 1928, the remainder of said judgment in amount of $14,805.94, with the costs assessed therein in the sum of $29.41, shall stand affirmed with interest at the legal rate from the date of the entry of said judgment, to-wit, February 23, 1928. It is further ordered that all costs upon this writ of error be paid by defendant in error, plaintiff below.

WHITFIELD, P. J., AND STRUM AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.

TERRELL, C. J., AND ELLIS AND BROWN, J. J., concur in the order.


Summaries of

Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Jan 3, 1930
124 So. 284 (Fla. 1930)
Case details for

Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger

Case Details

Full title:BLOUNT BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. C…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division B

Date published: Jan 3, 1930

Citations

124 So. 284 (Fla. 1930)
124 So. 284

Citing Cases

Reid v. Merrell

The decree also confirmed the report of the general master in chancery finding the sum of $500.00 as a…

Mullan v. Bank of Pasco County

Therefore, under the rule stated by this Court, the lower court erred in allowing a solicitor's fee to…