Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler
Decision Date | 27 September 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 16913,16913 |
Citation | 226 S.C. 94,83 S.E.2d 745 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. William E. CHANDLER, Jr., et al., Appellants. |
E. P. Riley, Greenville, Henry Hammer, Columbia, for appellants.
Price & Poag, Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondents.
This appeal relates to six actions, five of which were commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County and one in Richland County. They were consolidated and tried in Greenville. The actions are for an accounting of attorneys to clients and are, therefore, in equity. The factual findings and legal conclusions of the special referee, the Honorable Calhoun A. Mays, of Greenwood, were affirmed by the court which heard the case on exceptions to the referee's report. Therefore the concurrent findings of fact are not subject to reversal by this court on appeal unless they are without evidence to support them or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. 3 S.C. Dig. 557 et seq., Appeal and Error, key 1022.
The General Assembly of 1951, by provision of Section 95(b) of the General Appropriation Act, 47 Stat. 546, 656, amended the State soft drinks tax by excepting therefrom 'fruit juices plain and/or fortified.' This came to the attention of the Executive Secretary and General Counsel of the State association of bottlers, William E. Chandler, Jr., one of the appellants. He conferred with W. B. Morrow, of Sumter, who was then president of the association of which he called a meeting in Columbia on June 15, 1951, where the effect of the amendment was discussed. Immediately prior thereto Chandler, who was already paid a substantial monthly salary, expense account and travel allowance by the association, interviewed some of the bottlers with a view to obtaining the employment of his law firm to procure, by litigation if necessary, refunds of the taxes on certain bottled drinks, which the Tax Commission was insisting upon collecting despite the above statute, in accord with a proposed contract prepared by him which provided for a contingent fee of twenty per cent. However, Chandler now makes no claim to additional compensation for legal services to the bottlers in connection with the subsequent refunds, except as he may participate in the fee which may be recovered by Edens, who is the principal appellant; and this action is not concerned with the division. Both of these gentlemen are prominent members of the bar of this court.
There is sharp conflict in the evidene upon the contention of appellants that the result of the Columbia meeting was to authorize Morrow as the agent of the affected bottlers to engage counsel to prosecute their claims. The finding of the lower court was against the contention of appellants and, upon careful review of the evidence, we cannot say that the conclusion is contrary to the clear preponderance of it. However, the court came to the following conclusion, from which there is no appeal: 'The bottlers by making no protest against having suits brought in their names; by accepting the fruits of the victory in the County Court of Richland County; and by bringing their present suits for funds represented by the compromise settlement, have clearly ratified those acts.' An added finding, coupled with the foregoing, which is the main target of the appeal, is the following: 'I find no evidence, however, to support a finding that they ratified Mr. Morrow's unauthorized agreement to pay a fifty (50%) per cent attorneys' fee.'
After the June 15 meeting Morrow and Chandler conferred and concluded that a more experienced attorney than Chandler should be engaged to bring suits for the recovery of the taxes which the bottlers were instructed at the meeting to pay monthly under protest. They agree upon the choice of Mr. Edens, if he were available, and Mr. Chandler interviewed him, after which Morrow confirmed the employment in a telephone conversation. The testimony of both Morrow and Edens is clear that no fee was fixed, only that it must be contingent upon recovery and that the plaintiffs would not advance costs and disbursements. The testimony of both thereabout is significant and is quoted in part as follows: By Mr. Edens on direct examination: 'He (Morrow) asked me what my idea of a contingent fee would be and I advised him that with so many uncertain elements and factors at that time it would be completely impossible for me to suggest a contingent percentage but as we moved along and the litigation crystallized I would be in better position to agree on that.' This supported Mr. Edens' pleadings in the actions; in the complaint in that which he instituted against the bottlers the fourth paragraph is:
Pertinent testimony of Mr. Morrow follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
Time was short as it was then nearing the end of July within which a separate suit must be brought for each bottler who had paid under protest, and there were about 40 of them who are respondents here. Similar suits were brought each month for six months, which made a total of approximately 240 actions in all, which were brought in the Richland County Court in behalf of the present respondents.
A few days before the employment of Mr. Edens by Mr. Morrow the latter circularized the affected bottlers, asking for information necessary for the suits which the bottlers were instructed to send in an enclosed, stamped envelope addressed to Mr. Chandler. Blanks were included in the communication whereby the bottlers would agree, by filling and signing, to the payment of attorneys' fees and court costs in the amount of twenty per cent of the recovery. Few responded; certainly there was no general agreement to the suggested twenty per cent contingent fee and Mr. Edens had to proceed without direct authority from most of the respondents--only that extended in their behalf by Morrow--and had to obtain the factual information for the suits from the records of the Tax Commission.
A test case was tried, or test cases were tried, in the Richland County Court on January 22nd, of which notice was given to the bottlers and their attendance invited by Mr. Chandler by circular letter dated January 17, 1952. On January 29 a telegram was sent to the litigant bottlers signed by Mr. Chandler, Mr. Edens 'and associates,' which advised of favorable decision of the suit or suits which were tried.
On January 31 another circular letter, signed as that above and addressed to 'Bottlers represented in tax cases', advised of an amendment to the appropriation bill which was then before the General Assembly which threatened the recovery. The testimony of Mr. Edens reveals that the Governor became alarmed at the situation and the possible effect of the litigation upon State revenues and requested the legislation just mentioned, and Mr. Edens interviewed the Governor at length and also the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the result of which was an agreement that the proposed legislation should be withdrawn, the appeal of the State from the court decision or decisions abandoned, and refunds of the taxes made through December 1951. The record is not clear and we have not searched the statutes, but apparently the cited 1951 exemption of fruit juices from the soft drinks tax law was repealed as of February 1, 1952.
Mr. Edens called Mr. Morrow over the telephone during these negotiations and told him that the situation was precarious and the cases should be settled upon the above conditions, for which he required a fee of fifty per cent of the amount of the recoveries and refunds. Some of the pertinent testimony of Mr. Morrow follows:
'The Witness: I was informed by Mr. Edens that the amount of taxes that might be recovered had been reduced from the original estimate of more than half a million dollars down to possibly as much as two hundred thousand dollars.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weatherford v. Price
...relationship must be considered when determining a reasonable fee to be paid by a client. See Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745 (1954). The failure to consider these circumstances is An attorney/client relationship is by nature a fiduciary one. Royal Crown Bot......
-
Spence v. Wingate
...Hotz v. Minyard, 304 S.C. 225, 403 S.E.2d 634 (1991); In re Green, 291 S.C. 523, 354 S.E.2d 557 (1987); Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745 (1954); Wise v. Hardin, 5 S.C. 325 (1874); Weatherford v. Price, 340 S.C. 572, 532 S.E.2d 310 (Ct.App.2000). “The relation......
-
Eleazer v. Hardaway Concrete Co., Inc., 0153
...of compensation [7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 277 (1980); 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 324 (1980); cf. Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745 (1954) ]; and where a trial judge undertakes to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for services performe......
-
Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler
...They were consolidated by consent and tried in Greenville County. The decision of them was reversed upon appeal to this court. 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745. The bottler-plaintiffs are residents of various counties and the respondent Edens was at the time of the commencement of the actions, an......