Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh
| Decision Date | 20 December 1955 |
| Citation | 84 So.2d 498 |
| Parties | SENTCO, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Harold D. McCULLOH and Robert McCabe, doing business as The Candle-LiteChemical Co., and Candle-Lite Chemical Co., a corporation, as successor toHarold D. McCulloh and Robert McCabe, doing business as The Candle-LiteChemical Co., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hal H. McCaghren, West Palm Beach, and Allen Clements, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Charles E. Boland and Frank H. King, Coral Gables, for appellees.
The complaining parties here are counsel for the plaintiff, Sentco, Inc., the nominal appellant. They were retained by Sentco, Inc. on a contingent fee basis to file an unfair competition suit against defendants, appellees, here, and were successful in obtaining in this court a reversal of a decree adverse to plaintiff entered in that suit by the lower court. See Sentco, Inc., v. McCulloh, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 577. We there held that the plaintiff was entitled to some of the relief prayed for, although opinion that 'From the record now before us it appears that any award for damages may by pure speculation.'
After the going down of the mandate on that appeal, and during the pendency of proceedings to determine what, if any, damages the plaintiff should recover, the plaintiff entered into a release and settlement agreement with the defendants in the amount of $2,000. At the hearing on the suggestion of defendant's counsel that the suit should be dismissed because of the settlement agreement, counsel for plaintiff opposed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the settlement agreement was fraudulently made to deprive plaintiff's counsel of a substantial attorneys' fee and on the further ground that 'plaintiff's counsel are entitled to a fee assessed against defendants as damages for defendants' willful and deliberate acts of unfair competition.' Their motion to continue the prosecution of the cause for the purpose of recovering their attorneys' fee was denied, and the cause dismissed. This appeal by plaintiff's counsel, in the name of the plaintiff, followed. The sole point for determination here is whether the lower court erred in declining to continue the prosecution of the suit, as requested by plaintiff's counsel. We find no error here.
While an attorney will, in some circumstances, be permitted to continue a suit in the name of his client in order to recover his fee and costs, after his client has made a fraudulent or collusive settlement intending to deprive his attorney of his fee and costs, Mabry v. Knabb, 1942, 151 Fla. 432, 10 So.2d 330, 337, and authorities there cited; Miller v. Scobie, 1943, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So.2d 892, it is well settled that, if acting in good faith, the parties to an action may settle and adjust the same without the intervention of their attorneys. Harper v. Strong, 1938, 135 Fla. 10, 184 So. 848, 849; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, Sec. 116. The allegation of plaintiff's attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singleton v. Foreman
...Moreover, it is clear that an attorney never has the right to prohibit his client from settling an action in good faith. Sentco v. McCulloh, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 498; Florida Bar Rules, Canon No. 7. A client by virtue of a contract with his attorney is not made an indentured servant, a puppet......
-
Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., No. 4D03-2618
...of litigation, rather than settle the suit, simply because his attorneys [were] employed on a contingent fee basis." Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh, 84 So.2d 498, 499 (Fla.1955); see also Statement of Client's Rights for Contingency Fees 10, R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5 ("You, the client, have th......
-
United States v. Transocean Air Lines, Inc.
...attorney's lien. Such concession is a proper one. Webster v. Sweat, 5th Cir. 1933, 65 F.2d 109. The United States stresses Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh, Fla., 84 So.2d 498, to sustain its contention that there is no lien in this cause. The Sentco case was not wholly unlike the case before us, b......
-
In re Plaza
...force a litigant to hazard the outcome of litigation in order to secure a higher contingency fee for the attorney. Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh, 84 So.2d 498, 499 (Fla.1956). "A client by virtue of a contract with his attorney is not made an indentured servant, a puppet on counsel's string, nor......