Case Name: H. O. Hart and Willa L. Hart, His Wife, Appellants, v. Florida Discount Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Orel J. Myers, as Receiver of Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company; Melbourne State Bank, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1929-03-09
Citations: 97 Fla. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. O. Hart and Willa L. Hart, His Wife, Appellants, v. Florida Discount Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Orel J. Myers, as Receiver of Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company; Melbourne State Bank, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellees.
Judges: Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
H. O. Hart and Willa L. Hart, His Wife, Appellants, v. Florida Discount Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida; Orel J. Myers, as Receiver of Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company; Melbourne State Bank, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellees.
En Banc.
Opinion filed March 9, 1929.
J. Stockton Bryan, William T. Osteen and S. L. Lowenstein, Jr., for Appellants;
Winters, Foskett & Wilcox, 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 judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said decree in so far as it allows a solicitor's fee of $500.00. Breet v. The First National Bank of Marianna; Brooks v. Roberts, decided at this term. It is ordered that the chancellor may duly take testimony for the complainants as to the amount of solicitor's fees agreed by them to be paid to their solicitor for his services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from. Decree affirmed in other respects.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.