Ex Parte Graham
| Decision Date | 24 January 1939 |
| Citation | 186 So. 202,136 Fla. 20 |
| Parties | Ex parte GRAHAM. v. GRAHAM et al. HAMPTON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ex parte proceedings by Letitia V. Graham, wherein Hilton S Hampton and others, copartners, doing business as Hampton Bull & Crom, filed petition, opposed by the First Savings & Trust Company of Tampa, a corporation, as guardian of the person and curator of the estate of Letitia V. Graham, and another, for the purpose of having solicitor's fees awarded them from the estate for representing Jessie C Wilkes in her proceeding to have guardian and curator appointed. From a decree dismissing the petition, petitioners appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Harry N. Sandler, judge.
Hampton, Bull & Crom, of Tampa, for appellants.
Gibbons, Vega & Gibbons, of Tampa, for appellees.
In November, 1937, Jessie C. Wilkes, a widow, residing in Hillsborough County, being a cousin and next of kin of Letitia V. Graham, filed her petition in the Circuit Court as authorized by Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937, praying that a guardian of her person and a curator to take charge of her property be appointed for said Letitia V. Graham. The prayer of the petition was granted and First Savings and Trust Company of Tampa was appointed as such guardian and curator.
In May, 1938, relying on the same statute, Appellants here filed their petition in the Circuit Court to intervene for the purpose of having solicitor's fees awarded them from the estate of Letitia V. Graham for representing Jessie C. Wilkes in her proceeding to have the said guardian and curator appointed. Motion to dismiss the latter petition was granted and from that decree, this appeal was prosecuted.
Did the Court below commit error in refusing to award a reasonable attorney's fee to Appellants for successfully filing and prosecuting the petition of Jessie C. Wilkes to have a guardian for her person and a curator to take charge of the property of Letitia V. Graham appointed as provided by Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937, is the only question we are called on to answer.
Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937, provides a special statutory proceeding for the appointment of guardians of the person and curators to take charge of the property of 'weak-minded and physically incapacitated persons'. It provides that the next of kin or the sheriff of the county where the incompetent resides may file a petition under oath setting up the facts, naming all known relatives, and praying that such person be adjudged incompetent and that a guardian be appointed for her person and a curator to take charge of her estate. Notice is required to be given, hearings held if necessary, the right of appeal is granted, and the powers of the guardian and curator are defined. The fact that everything the act requires was promptly and efficiently done in this case is not challenged. It appears admitted that the service for which compensation is sought was performed and was valuable but payment therefor from the estate of Letitia V. Graham was refused by the Chancellor for lack of statutory fiat therefor.
Appellants contend that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 95-3865
...v. Union Finance Co., 54 So.2d 188 (Fla.1951); Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So.2d 160 (Fla.); Ex parte Graham, 136 Fla. 20, 186 So. 202 (1939); Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. 111, 176 So. 442 (1937). As the court explained in Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, Employers Service Co......
-
Shavers v. Duval County
...or by statute. State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668; Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. 111, 176 So. 442; Ex parte Graham, 136 Fla. 20, 186 So. 202; Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So.2d 160; Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Union Finance Co., Fla., 54 So.2d 188......
-
Penney v. Pritchard & McCall
...they are all controlling here, but the discussion in many of them shows that such fees are properly termed necessaries. In Ex parte Graham, 136 Fla. 20, 186 So. 202, an attorney's fee was disallowed in the circuit court. It is not clear from the report whether the court was sitting in equit......
-
Field's Estate, In re, B-223
...State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs, 1924, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668; Webb v. Scott, 1937, 129 Fla. 111, 176 So. 442; Ex parte Graham, 1939, 136 Fla. 20, 186 So. 202; Main v. Benjamin Foster Co., 1939, 141 Fla. 91, 192 So. 602, 126 A.L.R. 1434; Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 1948, 160......