Rosenfelder v. Huttoe
| Decision Date | 23 June 1953 |
| Citation | 66 So.2d 226 |
| Parties | ROSENFELDER et al. v. HUTTOE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Olavi M. Hendrickson, Miami, for appellants.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellee.
In City of Miami v. Huttoe, Fla., 40 So.2d 899, 901, we reversed a judgment entered by the trial court awarding attorney's fees to Huttoe, appellee, for the reasons, as stated in the opinion (text page 901), 'we think appellant was entitled to have the case submitted to a jury on this point alone to determine what amount under all the circumstances would be reasonable.' The opinion above concluded with these words:
'* * * For this purpose and no other the cause is reversed with directions to submit the issue of what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee under the circumstances recited and the issues made, the amount of the verdict so awarded will limit the amount that appellee may recover from appellant.'
At the trial in the lower court the attorneys representing the appellee testified as to the nature and extent of their services, and further testified what, in their opinion, would be a reasonable fee. One of the attorneys employed by appellee testified that a fee of $5,000 would be reasonable and the other that a fee of 'substantially more than $7500.00' would be reasonable. A disinterested lawyer called by plaintiffs testified a fee of $10,000 would be reasonable. The appellants presented three lawyers, two of whom testified that $2,500 would be a reasonable fee and the other that $2,000 would be reasonable. On this evidence the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Huttoe for $2,500.
The lower court set this verdict aside and awarded a new trial, assigning as reasons therefor the following:
'(2) The verdict is contrary to the evidence.'
'(4) The verdict is so contrary to the law as to indicate misinterpretation and mistake on the part of the Jury.
'(5) The verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
'(6) The evidence of the defendant was insufficient both in quantity and quality for the Court to have submitted the same to the Jury for determination.'
'It is apparent to the Court that the jury totally failed to understand that elements to be taken into consideration for fixing the amount of attorney's fees for services rendered by the attorney in prosecuting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.'
The City of Miami has appealed from this latter order.
An...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Russo, 2187
...justice is rendered. But the case was tried before the jury, as well as the judge. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 226, where the only reason for awarding a new trial would be to have another jury pass on the question of the amount of the damage......
-
Mow v. F. P. Sadowski Corp., 59-273
...justice is rendered. But the case was tried before the jury, as well as the judge. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 226, where the only reason for awarding a new trial would be to have another jury pass on the question of the amount of the damage......
-
Little v. Bankers Nat. Life Ins. Co., 78-230
...would have been to have another jury try the case, which is a manifestly insufficient reason for granting a new trial. Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So.2d 226 (Fla.1953). Appellant's final point cannot be considered on appeal, the record is devoid of any proper and timely objection by counsel a......
-
Fierstos v. Cullum
...of the jury. Under the circumstances the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury. See Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So.2d 226 (Fla.1953); Dixon v. Thompson, 217 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA We therefore reverse the trial court, order the judgment set aside and direct that......