Farrell v. Betts & Betts
| Decision Date | 17 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 558 |
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 668,81 So. 188 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | FARRELL v. BETTS & BETTS. |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell Judge.
Action by Lucy Mitchell Farrell against Betts & Betts. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
In action against attorneys to recover alimony collected for plaintiff, evidence held to show that the amount retained by defendants was a fair and just remuneration for services rendered.
Action on the common counts by appellant against the appellees for money had and received. The defendants pleaded the general issue in short by consent with leave to give in evidence any facts that would constitute a defense to the action. The facts, as developed on the trial, with reference to which the evidence is not in conflict, are that the defendants are lawyers, and were employed by the plaintiff to represent her in a divorce suit in the chancery court of Madison county, brought by the plaintiff's husband against her, and in which the defendants in the prosecution of their employment filed an answer and cross-bill for and on behalf of the plaintiff contesting the right of the complainant to the relief sought and seeking for her a divorce and alimony. The proceedings in the chancery court were prosecuted to a final decree dismissing the original bill and granting the relief prayed for in the cross-bill, granting to the plaintiff a divorce from her husband and decreeing an allowance of $1,200 as alimony and $100 as solicitors' fees; it being shown that the amount of the solicitors' fees was fixed by agreement of parties made through their respective solicitors.
From the final decree of the chancery court an appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, and on this appeal the defendants represented the plaintiff here, the appeal resulting in an affirmance of the decree of the chancery court. Farrell v. Farrell, 196 Ala. 167, 71 So. 661. It further appears that the plaintiff, through her solicitors, after the appeal to the Supreme Court had been perfected, made application to the chancellor for a further allowance as solicitors' fees for the prosecution of the appeal. The petition in respect thereto was dismissed on the ground that the chancellor was without authority to grant further relief in this respect pending the appeal. Thereupon the plaintiff, through her solicitors, applied to the Supreme Court for a mandamus to compel the granting of the petition for additional solicitors' fees. This mandamus was denied. Ex parte Farrell, 196 Ala. 434, 71 So. 462, L.R.A.1916F, 1257.
It was also shown that the plaintiff, before she employed the defendants to represent her, agreed to accept $100 as alimony, which sum was paid to her, and she executed a release to her husband from further liability. During the pendency of the litigation, the plaintiff authorized her solicitors (the defendants) to settle the amount of alimony that she was to receive for $500; and, upon this proposition being submitted to the complainant's solicitors, such settlement was refused on the ground that the plaintiff had already settled this feature of the litigation, and had released the complainant in the chancery proceeding from further liability.
The suit was stubbornly contested to its final determination, a great deal of testimony being taken and some expense occasioned, which the defendants paid out of their own pockets, and at the same time they advanced to the plaintiff small sums of money, and also rendered to her other legal services, in the collection of a small claim for insurance, and in the settlement of a controversy with reference to the rental of some property.
The amount of the expense incident to the prosecution of the plaintiff's cause appears from the evidence to have been from $75 to $100, and the amount advanced to her by one of the defendants was from $25 to $29. The defendants collected the amount of the decree, $1,347.62, which included the interest, and paid to the plaintiff the sum of $800, the plaintiff at the time the payment was made executing a receipt in full to the defendants for their liability. The evidence shows without dispute that there was no agreement or understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants as to what amount of compensation the defendants should receive for their services, it being shown that the plaintiff stated to them that she was without means, and was unable to pay them at the time, and evidence was offered by the defendants showing that the plaintiff stated that they should be compensated out of the amount recovered. The defendants offered a number of competent witnesses, whose testimony was received over the objection of the plaintiff, showing that the amount retained by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Apperson
...to allow temporary alimony pending the appeal. In this is the distinction between the Spafford and Farrell Cases. Farrell v. Betts, 16 Ala.App. 668, 81 So. 188. general rule of the later cases sustains the jurisdiction of the trial court in divorce action to make temporary allowance to the ......
-
Vardaman v. Vardaman
...action. See, e.g., Rast v. Rast, 113 Ala. 319, 322, 21 So. 34, 35–36 (1896) ; Johnson v. Gerald, supra; and Farrell v. Betts & Betts, 16 Ala.App. 668, 81 So. 188 (1918). As such, the same principles governing pendente lite alimony awards applied equally to awards of attorney's fees, see Man......
-
State ex rel. Tolls v. Tolls
...governed by the same rules: Barnes v. Barnes, 59 Iowa 456 (13 N.W. 441); Anderson v. Steger, 173 Ill. 112 (50 N.E. 665); Farrell v. Betts, 16 Ala. App. 668 (81 So. 188); 1 R.C.L. 910, § 57. The order in this regard is likewise subject to the supervisory control of the court and may be modif......
-
Johnson v. Gerald
... ... attorney's right in the premises. It is by way of ... contract with the wife. Farrell v. Betts & Betts, 16 ... Ala.App. 668, 81 So. 188; Bell v. Bell, 214 Ala ... 573, 108 So. 375, ... ...