Freeman v. Continental Gin Company, 23691.
Decision Date | 20 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 23691.,23691. |
Citation | 384 F.2d 365 |
Parties | John H. FREEMAN, Jr., d/b/a Freeman Electric Gin Company, Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL GIN COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Norman Craig Brewer, Jr., Greenwood, Miss., John C. Satterfield, Yazoo City, Miss., J. Dudley Buford, Jackson, Miss., Brewer, Deaton & Evans, Greenwood, Miss., Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, Yazoo City, Miss., for appellant.
I. T. Cohen, Atlanta, Ga., Charles Clark, Jackson, Miss., for appellee.
Before COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges, and ESTES, District Judge.
Upon consideration, the petition of appellant for rehearing in the above captioned cause is hereby denied.
With respect to appellee's motion for allowance of attorneys' fees for services in connection with appeal, we have concluded that appellee is entitled to the allowance of additional reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in connection with this appeal, and it is ordered that directions in the mandate be to enter judgment for appellee, plaintiff below, in accordance with the opinion of this Court, including a direction that the District Court consider, determine and award reasonable attorneys' fees to appellee for services rendered on this appeal.
The District Court's judgment and this Court's affirmance established that appellee had a contractual right to reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing their contract with appellant and in collecting the amounts due thereunder. Mississippi follows the majority rule stated in Steele v. Vanderslice, 90 Ariz. 277, 367 P.2d 636, 643, that "The more recent authorities considering contracts which provide for attorneys' fees have made allowances for additional fees for the prosecution or defense of an action in the appellate courts." See T. M. Strider & Co. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. (Miss., 1942), 10 So.2d 350; Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Miss., 1966), 191 So.2d 917.* On principle, this result is surely correct. Provision for an attorney's fee is put into a contract by a seller because he wants to be sure that he will obtain the full contract price for the goods and that he does not lose his profit because he is forced to go to court to collect. It is immaterial whether he is put to expense in trial court or appellate court.
In allowing additional fees for legal services on appeal in statutory actions, this Court has sometimes fixed the amount thereof. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Henderson, 128 F.2d 1019, 1020 (5 Cir. 1942); Radcliff Gravel Co. v. Henderson, 138 F.2d 549, 550 (5 Cir. 1943); American Crystal Sugar Co. v. Mandeville Island Farms, 195 F.2d 622, 626 (9 Cir. 1952). More recently it has said that this "should be determined in the first instance by the district court." United States for Use and Benefit of Caldwell Foundry & Mach. Co., Inc. v. Texas Construction Co., 237 F.2d 705, 707 (5 Cir. 1955), and Serbin, Inc. v. Keywest Hand Print Fabrics (5 Cir. 1967), 381 F.2d 735, citing D/S Ove Skou v. Hebert (5 Cir. 1966), 365 F.2d 341, 353.
The Mississippi cases cited by appellant, Silver Creek Co. v. Hutchens, 168 Miss. 757, 151 So. 559, and Smith v. Perkins, 125 Miss. 203, 88 So. 531, are clearly not in point. The Silver Creek case did not involve a contractual right to a fee but applied a Mississippi rule awarding a fee to a party who is successful in having an injunction dissolved where this relief is independent of the merits of the case. The Smith case is admitted by appellant to be "not directly in point." Again, no contractual right was involved, but a statute allowing 5% as damages to a party successfully resisting an injunction. The trial court had awarded the full 5%, and it was held that since this was the statutory maximum, no more could be awarded on appeal. The distinction of Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 191 So.2d 917, cited above, suggested by appellant is untenable. Since the opinion of the Court in that case has 5½ printed pages of discussion of the merits, the appeal was clearly not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. Henrich
...party has moved for summary judgment, see, e.g., Freeman v. Continental Gin Company, 381 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1967), rehearing denied, 384 F.2d 365, the fact that a party seeks to amend his pleading after a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the opposition is an insufficient basis,......
-
Freeman v. Continental Gin Company
...of counsel, for appellee. Before COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges, and ESTES, District Judge. Rehearing Denied October 20, 1967. See 384 F.2d 365. ESTES, District On July 4, 1962, John H. Freeman, Jr. signed a printed form contract, witnessed by representatives of the Continental Gin Co., b......
-
In re G. Survivor Corp.
...Inc., 602 F.2d 15, 19-20 (1st Cir.1979) (quoting Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459, 469 (5th Cir.1967), reh'g denied, 384 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1967))). See Phaneuf, 938 F.Supp. at DECISION Harari argues that I should deny the Trustee's motion as a bad faith tactic solely to forestal......
-
Eklof v. Persson
...to dismiss, unless the amendment would have been futile"); Freeman v. Continental Gin Company , 381 F.2d 459, 468-70, reh'g den , 384 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing Foman and observing that the proposed amendment in that case, filed eight months after judgment issued, could have been refu......