Case ID: pa_348/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warden Estate.
    Argued November 24, 1943.
    Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearns, JJ.
    
      Ira Jewell Williams, with him Richard C. Bull, for appellant.
    
      Claude C. Smith, with him Raymond M. Remide, of Saul, Ewing, Remide & Harrison, and Duane, Morris & Hedescher, for appellees.
    January 3, 1944:
   Per Curiam,

The question involved in this appeal is whether the fee of counsel engaged in the case in the court below should be $15,000., as counsel claims, or should be $11,-500., as the auditing judge in the court below fixed it.

The allowance of counsel fees in sucli eases depends upon many factors; among them are tke size of tke estate, tke novelty and difficulty of tke questions involved, tke extent of counsel’s labor on tke case and tke timé the labor required, tke responsibility assumed by counsel, and kis professional standing.

In passing upon questions of fees we have often said in substance tkat tke judges of the court below where tke case was litigated are in a better position than we are to pass upon the fairness and justness of the fees of counsel, and that we will not reverse tke findings of tke court below on suck matters unless it is obvious tkat error has been committed. There is no suck manifest error here.

Tke decree is affirmed at appellant’s cost. 
      
       See Canon 12 of the Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association.