Mallard v. Ewing, (1935)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 4
Judges: ELLIS, P.J.
Attorneys: Robert C. Lane, for Appellant;
Brown Wood, for Appellee.
Filed: Apr. 05, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 656 Daisy O. Mallard, the appellant in this case, owed Charles M. Ewing two thousand dollars and gave her promissory note to him in that sum payable two months after its date. The note was dated June 1, 1933, and the payment of it was secured by a mortgage upon a lot of land in Coral Gables. The day after the due date of the note Ewing exhibited his bill in t
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 656 Daisy O. Mallard, the appellant in this case, owed Charles M. Ewing two thousand dollars and gave her promissory note to him in that sum payable two months after its date. The note was dated June 1, 1933, and the payment of it was secured by a mortgage upon a lot of land in Coral Gables. The day after the due date of the note Ewing exhibited his bill in th..
More
I concur in all that is contained in Mr. Justice ELLIS' opinion except condemnation of the attorney's fees allowance. It is a rash thing to presume that the attorney for the mortgagee intended his legal services as a gratuity to his client. If he did not, the law will imply an enforceable promise from the client to pay a reasonable fee for foreclosing the mortgage. Why cannot indemnity against what the law will imply as a recoverable attorney's fee be recovered in a case like this? I think it can be on the very principle which is cited to deny it, namely indemnification.
ON REHEARING
Source: CourtListener
