Mandle v. Kelly, 40273

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBERDS
• Citation: Mandle v. Kelly, 229 Miss. 327, 92 So.2d 246 (Miss. 1957)
• Decision Date: 21 January 1957
• Docket Number: No. 40273,40273
• Parties: Luther MANDLE v. R. O. KELLY, d.b.a. R. O. Kelly Cannery & Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Company.

Page 246

92 So.2d 246

229 Miss. 327

Luther MANDLE v. R. O. KELLY, d.b.a. R. O. Kelly Cannery & Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Company.

No. 40273.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 21, 1957.

Jason Floyd, Gulfport, for appellant.

Wallace & Greaves, Gulfport, for appellee.

ROBERDS, Presiding Justice.

This case was handed down on its merits November 19, 1956. Miss., 90 So.2d 645.

Mandle and his attorney have filed a motion asking the Court to approve a contract between them under which the attorney is to receive fifty percent of the amount of compensation recovered by Mandle. In Prince v. Nicholson, Miss., 91 So.2d 734, 738, this Court said:

'It further appears from the record that the circuit court allowed to the claimant's attorney as an attorney's fee for his services forty percent of the benefits recovered, in accordance with a contract entered into between the claimant and said attorney. We have heretofore definitely held, however, that the fee for all services of a claimant's attorney in workmen's compensation cases should not exceed 33 1/3% of the sum recovered. Sunnyland Contracting Co., Inc., v. Davis, 221 Miss. 744, 74 So.2d 858, 75 So.2d 638, 923; Mississippi Federated Co-operatives v. Jefferson, Miss., 79 So.2d 723; Pigford Bros. Construction Co. v. Evans, Miss., 83 So.2d 622.'

The motion herein discloses that counsel has performed an unusual amount of legal work. However, we think it inadvisible to undertake to estimate and evaluate the services which attorneys perform so as to increase their fees in excess of the maximum we have heretofore set.

Therefore, the contract in this case will be...