Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Central Trust Co. of Illinois

Decision Date26 April 1917
Docket Number3 Div. 266
Citation75 So. 330,200 Ala. 18
PartiesCITIZENS' LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Suit between the Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Company and the Central Trust Company of Illinois and others. From the decree, the Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Company appeals. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.

Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Armbrecht, McMillan & Caffey, of Mobile, and Steiner, Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for appellees.

SAYRE, J.

The questions raised by this appeal concern the amount of allowances to the receiver, his attorney, and the trustee in the deed of trust made to secure appellant's indebtedness.

The chancellor had the right, if he concluded the justice of the matter so required, to look to the whole record, including the register's report and the evidence taken on the reference, and make what decree he deemed just in respect to the contested items, and this court has the same right. Horst v. Pake, 71 So. 430; Faulk v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 So. 450.

The presumption on this appeal is that the register was right. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183, 35 So. 767. However, it is competent for the court, in the case of questions of the sort here presented, questions as to the value of services rendered, to exercise its independent judgment and determine the contested items upon consideration of the whole case as developed on the record. The court is not bound to accept the opinions of witnesses in such matters. Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470, 39 So. 512; Robinson v. Crotwell, 175 Ala. 194, 57 So. 23.

After due consideration the court has determined the items in dispute as follows: To the receiver, $300; to the receiver's attorney, $250; to the trustee, $375. One-half the costs of this appeal will be divided between the receiver and the trustee; one-half will be taxed against the appellant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.

ANDERSON, C.J., and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1934
    ... ... issue of fact (Citizens' Light, etc., Co. v ... Illinois Central Trust ... ...
  • Frazer v. First Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1938
    ... ... Ala. 356, 125 So. 222) recognized the power of a court of ... equity to award advancements o the beneficiary of a trust ... for infants and to other than infants who ... The Supreme Court of ... Illinois, however, announced the rule in that state to be ... opinion of the witnesses. Citizens' Light, Heat & ... Power Co. v. Central Trust ... ...
  • Dent v. Foy
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1925
    ... ... general principles of equity, a trust should bear the ... reasonable and necessary ... light of accomplished results. The issue presented did ... Citizens' ... Light Co. v. Central Trust Co., 200 Ala ... ...
  • Buttrey v. Buttrey
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1928
    ... ... Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So ... 685; Citizens' Co. v. Central Trust Co., 200 ... Ala. 18, 75 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT