Case ID: sc_73/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Woods.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BUTLER v. BUTLER.
    Partition. — Attorney for plaintiffs in partition suit is not erP'tled to fee out of common fund.
    Before Prince, J., Saluda, April, 1905.
    Affirmed.
    Action by Henry Butler et ail. against Lucinda Butler et al. Plaintiffs appeal from Circuit decree.
    
      Messrs. Able & Blease, for appellants,
    cite: 13 S. C., 445; 25 S. C., 505.
    
      Mr. Wm. N. Graydon, contra,
    cites: 24 S. C., 238; 13 S. C., 445; 21 S. C., 162; 24 S. C., 239; 25 S. C., 200, 496; 36 S. C., 25; 60 Am. St. R., 510; 27 L. R. A., 99; 105 U. S., 533.
    March 3, 1906.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The brothers and sisters and the nephews and nieces of Silas- Butler brought this action for partition against his widow. Partition in kind having been found impracticable, the land was sold by order of the Court. The master reported that attorneys for plaintiff should be allowed a fee of $2-50 for their services in the partition suit, to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of land before distribution. Upon exception to this recommendation of the master, the Circuit Judge held there was no warrant for the allowance of a fee to the attorneys for the plaintiffs out of the common fund. The precise point was decided in Westmoreland v. Martin, 24 S. C., 238.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.