Lewis v. Lewis, 15023.
| Citation | 218 S.W.2d 220 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 15023.,15023. |
| Parties | LEWIS v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; W. F. Bane, Judge.
Action for divorce by Maude Lees Lewis against Homer L. Lewis. From a judgment denying attorney's fees, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
O'Connor & Douglass and Jas. D. O'Connor, all of Dallas, for appellant.
Graves & Robertson and Elgar L. Robertson, all of Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of a district court in Dallas County, Texas, denying appellant, Maude Lees Lewis, attorney's fees alleged to be due her from appellee, Homer L. Lewis, in order to pay an attorney for representing her in the divorce case against appellee.
There are only two pages of testimony before us and they reveal the following pertaining to attorney's fees:
Appellant contends that it was neither necessary to allege and prove reasonableness of the fee nor the necessity for same, and cites, among other cases, the following: Hodges v. Hodges, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 943; Moore v. Moore, Tex. Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 929. Both of these cases are by this court. They are distinguishable from the case at bar in that there was expert testimony heard pertaining to the fee and the court granted attorney's fees in both cases. It was also held in those cases the court could not arbitrarily disregard expert testimony but it could consider along with same his own experiences and observations in such matters. The question for us to decide is whether or not the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow an attorney's fee under the facts in this case, rather than whether the court could properly have allowed an attorney's fee under the same state of facts.
Appellant's contention is also that she is entitled to attorney's fees provided she filed her suit in good faith and upon probable grounds for divorce. We find these fact issues are prerequisite for asserting attorney's fees, but such rule for attorney's fees is not based upon a statute, it springs from a theory that such fees are recoverable as necessaries; upon such theory we find the court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing appellant attorney's fees when there is no evidence showing that such attorney's fees were neither reasonable nor necessary in order for appellant to prosecute her cause of action against appellee.
We find in the court's judgment a recitation pertaining to attorney's fees as follows:
There is inserted in the court's findings of fact the following:
"I further find that plaintiff employed O'Connor and Douglas, a law firm of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earnest v. Earnest
...necessarily incurred the decision of the lower court will be affirmed.' See 15 Tex.Jr., pp. 658, 659, sec. 157." Lewis v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 220, 222. There is no evidence showing that the requested attorney's fees were necessary for appellant to prosecute her cause of action a......
-
Houssiere v. Houssiere
...financial standing of the parties in awarding appellee her attorneys' fees. Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002; Lewis v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 220. Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error by this appeal. The judgment of the trial court is therefore 1 The tr......
-
Cluck v. Cluck, 16926
...in the award of attorney's fees in a divorce case it must appear that there has been a clear abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. Lewis, 218 S.W.2d 220, 221-222 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1949, no writ). Appellant contends that appellee's first counsel, Mr. Casseb, is not entitled to attorney's......
-
Gray v. Gray, 10325
...allow her attorney's fees, a matter we do not determine, then we find that no abuse of such discretion is shown. See Lewis v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 218 S.W.2d 220. The judgment of the trial court is GRAY, J., not sitting. On Motion for Rehearing of Appellant Kate Gray HUGHES, Jus......