TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Central Trust Co.

CITIZENS’ LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS Et Al.

Citizens' Light v. Cent. Trust Co., 75 So. 330 (Ala. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 26, 1917
Docket
No. 3 Div. 266.
Judges
Sayre, Anderson, McClellan, Gardner
Citations
75 So. 330200 Ala. 181917 Ala. LEXIS 270
Disposition
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.
Headnotes
1.Apijeal and Error <&wkey;103 3 — Mortgages &wkey;481 — Reference—Exception to Report. In determining the amount of allowances to a receiver, his attorney and the trustee in a deed of trust, a chancellor, when justice so required, could look to the whole record, including the register’s report and the evidence taken on the reference, and make such decree as he deemed just in respect to the contested items, and the Appellate Court has the same right. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3993-3995; Mortgages, Cent. Dig. § 1400.] 2. Appbai. and Error <&wkey;1017 — Review-Contested Report of Register. Although the presumption on appeal is that a register’s report is correct, it is competent for the appellate court, in the case of questions as to the value of services rendered by a receiver, his attorney and a trustee in a deed of trust, to exercise its independent judgment and_ determine the contested items upon consideration of the whole case as developed on the record. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig’. §§ 3911, 3961, 3996-4005.] 3. Evidence <&wkey;50S(4) —Expert Evidence-Question of Fact. The court is not bound to accept tho opinions of witnesses as to the value of services rendered by a receiver, his attorney and trustee in a deed of trust. <gs»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Summary
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge. Suit between the Citizens’ Light, Heat &' Power Company and the Central Trust Company of Illinois and others. From the decree, the Citizens’ Light, Heat & Power Company appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sayre

SAYRE, J.

The questions raised by this appeal concern the amount of allowances to the receiver, his attorney, and the trustee in the deed of trust made to secure appellant’s indebtedness.

[1]

The chancellor had the right, if he concluded the justice of the matter so required, to look to the whole record, including the register’s report and the evidence taken on the reference, and make what decree he deemed just in respect to the contested items, and this court has the same right. Horst v. Pake, 195 Ala. 620 , 71 South. 430 ; Faulk v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254 , 59 South. 450 .

L2, 3]

The presumption on this appeal is that the register was right. Pollard v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 139 Ala. 183 , 35 South. 767 . However, it is competent for the court, in the case of questions of the sort here presented, questions as to the value of services rendered, to exercise its independent judgment and determine the contested items upon consideration of the whole case as developed on the record. The court is not bound to accept the opinions of witnesses in such matters. Andrews v. Frierson, 144 Ala. 470 , 39 South. 512 ; Robinson v. Crotwell, 175 Ala. 194 , 57 South. 23 .

'After due consideration the court has determined the items in dispute as follows: To the receiver, $300; to the receiver’s attorney, $250; to the trustee, $375. One-half the *19 costs of this appeal will be divided between, the receiver and. the trustee; one-half will be taxed against the appellant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. X, and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, J.T., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 11923: 11925: 21928: 11930: 11932: 11934: 11937: 11938: 11951: 119222026peak 1925 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dent v. Foy107 So. 210 (Ala. 1925)
  2. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon153 So. 755 (Ala. 1934)
  3. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Chambers146 So. 524 (Ala. 1932)
  4. Frazer v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile178 So. 441 (Ala. 1938)
  5. Dent v. Foy97 So. 627 (Ala. 1923)
  6. Buttrey v. Buttrey118 So. 282 (Ala. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Walker v. Walker54 So. 2d 281 (Ala. 1951)
  2. Frazer v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile178 So. 441 (Ala. 1938)
  3. Willett Willett v. First Nat. Bank of Anniston176 So. 344 (Ala. 1937)
  4. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon153 So. 755 (Ala. 1934)
  5. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Chambers146 So. 524 (Ala. 1932)
  6. Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Hatch127 So. 173 (Ala. 1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Robinson v. Crotwell, 57 So. 23 (Ala. 1911) 58
Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co., 59 So. 450 (Ala. 1912) 41
Andrews v. Frierson, 39 So. 512 (Ala. 1905) 36
Horst v. Pake, 71 So. 430 (Ala. 1916) 9
Pollard v. Am. Freehold Land Mortg. Co. of London, 139 Ala. 183 (1903) 32

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list