Britt v. McCormick County Commission

• Decision Date: 01 August 1921
• Docket Number: 10688.
• Citation: 108 S.E. 179,117 S.C. 8
• Parties: BRITT v. MCCORMICK COUNTY COMMISSION ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

108 S.E. 179

117 S.C. 8

BRITT v. MCCORMICK COUNTY COMMISSION ET AL.

No. 10688.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 1, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of McCormick County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by J. E. Britt against the McCormick County Commission and others. From an order allowing fees to attorneys of the defendants for procuring the dissolution of a temporary restraining order, plaintiff appeals. Modified.

Tillman Mays & Harris, of Greenwood, for appellant.

Joseph Murray, of McCormick, for respondents.

WATTS J.

This is an appeal from an order of his honor, Judge Memminger allowing fees to attorneys of respondents for procuring the dissolution of a temporary restraining order issued by his honor, Judge De Vore. Upon the hearing before Judge De Vore he dissolved the same, and dismissed that case as being without merit.

Exceptions 1, 2, and 3 allege error, and deny that any attorney's fees can be recovered in this action. These exceptions are overruled. The appellant obtained the injunction, and put the respondents to the necessity of employing attorneys to obtain relief. It was decided by Judge De Vore that an unjust restriction had been placed upon the respondents by the action of the appellant; that the payment of attorney's fees was necessary on the part of the respondents, in order to obtain their rights; that to that extent they were damaged by the action of appellant in procuring the restraining order; and that under the bond of appellant he had agreed to pay such damages as respondents sustained. The employment of counsel and paying fees of counsel by respondents were damages natural to the obtaining of the order of injunction and appellant should be required to pay a reasonable fee therefor.

Exceptions 4, 5, 6, and 7 will be considered together. They complain that his honor should have held that the regular attorney should have attended to the litigation, for his fixed yearly compensation, and that the respondents could not employ three different attorneys; that the allowance was excessive and unnecessary; that one of the attorneys who was paid a fee, had nothing to do with the vacation of injunction, but acted on an entirely different matter; and that it was error to allow for hire of automobile. Mr Murray, according to the evidence, was not employed to attend to all matters of litigation. The respondents had the right to employ counsel to aid them in...