Trautz v. Lemp
| Decision Date | 18 April 1934 |
| Citation | 72 S.W.2d 104,334 Mo. 1085 |
| Parties | Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Alexander H. Handlan et al., Appellants, Vella Marie Bisbee. Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Kathryn H. Trautz et al., Appellants, Alexander H. Handlan et al. Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Alexander H. Handlan et al., Appellants, Kathryn H. Trautz et al. Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Alexander H. Handlan et al., Appellants, Edward C. Crow et al. Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Alexander H. Handlan et al., Appellants, Marie H. Hornsby. Kathryn H. Trautz, Plaintiff, v. William H. Lemp et al., Alexander H. Handlan et al., Appellants, Mercantile-Commerce National Bank, Administrators, et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 334 Mo. 1085 at 1100.
Original Opinion of April 18, 1934, Reported at 334 Mo. 1085.
Tipton, J. All concur, except Ellison and Hays, JJ., absent.
OPINIONTIPTON
On Motion for Rehearing and on Motion to Modify.
Barth & Barron have filed a motion for rehearing and, also, a motion to modify. The reason assigned in these motions are that they represented Kathryn Trautz, as guardian and curatrix of Kathryn Marie Handlan Trautz, a minor, from September 15, 1921, until March 16, 1927, and no allowance was made to them for this service.
In this kind of a case, attorneys' fees and expenses are allowed to a litigant, to reimburse him for money expended by him for the benefit of the estate. The fee is not allowed to the attorney; but to the litigant.
In writing the opinion we did not overlook the question raised on these motions, but the order of the trial court allowed the fee to Barth & Barron, as attorneys for Kathryn Trautz, and no mention was made in the order as to Kathryn Trautz, guardian and curatrix; nor was this fact called to the court's attention in her motion for a new trial.
The question raised in these motions is not before us for our decision.
Both motions should be overruled. It is so ordered. All concur, except Ellison and Hays, JJ., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Kaltenbach
... ... sort is proper. St. Louis v. McAllister, 302 Mo ... 152, 257 S.W. 425; Trautz v. Lemp, 334 Mo. 1085, 72 ... S.W.2d 104; Singer v. Taylor, 137 P. 931; Guerin ... v. Guerin, 270 Ill. 239, 110 N.E. 402; Morse v ... ...
-
In re Thomasson's Estate
...Mo.App. 229, 246(18), 167 S.W. 463, 468(16). This is true even where the attorney is directly employed by the administrator. Trautz v. Lemp, 334 Mo. 1085, 1094(1, 2), 72 104, 107 (1, 2). On this theory it is said the general rule is, that while no allowance may be made out of an estate for ......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Fitch
... ... must bear the costs of its own administration. St. Louis ... v. McAllister, 302 Mo. 152, 257 S.W. 425; Trautz v ... Lemp, 334 Mo. 1085, 72 S.W.2d 104; Coffman v ... Gates, 110 Mo.App. 475; Ingraham v. Ingraham, ... 169 Ill. 432, 48 N.E. 561; Fifth-Third ... ...
-
Trautz v. Lemp
...Mercantile-Commerce National Bank, Administrators, et al Supreme Court of MissouriApril 18, 1934 Rehearing Granted, Reported at 334 Mo. 1085 at 1100. from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Albert D. Nortoni, Judge. Reversed and remanded (with directions). Leahy, Saunders & Walther an......