Case Name: H. A. Vieno, and Elizabeth Vieno, his wife, and C. B. Ewing and Julia Ewing, his wife, Appellants, vs. Fred Fields and Miley Fields, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1931-04-14
Citations: 101 Fla. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. A. Vieno, and Elizabeth Vieno, his wife, and C. B. Ewing and Julia Ewing, his wife, Appellants, vs. Fred Fields and Miley Fields, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
H. A. Vieno, and Elizabeth Vieno, his wife, and C. B. Ewing and Julia Ewing, his wife, Appellants, vs. Fred Fields and Miley Fields, his wife, Appellees.
Opinion filed April 14, 1931.
Jones & Jones, for Appellants;
J. N. Hutchins and Lawson Magruder, for Appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judg ment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that' there is no error in the decree, except as to the amount allowed and decreed to be paid to the complainants as an attorney's fee for the foreclosure of the mortgage. There is no allegation in the bill of complaint nor any evidence to show that the complainants had any agreement whatever with their solicitor as to the compensation he should receive for his services in the cause. It is ordered that the cause be, and the same is hereby remanded with directions to the chancellor to reform the decree, by striking therefrom the provisions relating to the allowance of fees to complainants' for their solicitor, and upon the decree being so modified and entered, that the same stand affirmed. See Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna, 97 Fla. 284, 120 So. 554; Brooks v. Roberts, 97 Fla. 374, 120 So. 765; Hatch v. Trabue, 99 Fla. 1169, 128 So. 420; Wright v. Merdes, 98 Fla. 859, 124 So. 448.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.