Case Name: J. E. Turner and Cora Turner, et vir, Florrida Bank and Trust Company, a corporation, Fuquay and Gheen, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Seiberling Rubber Company, a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Ohio, v. City of Daytona Beach
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1937-07-31
Citations: 128 Fla. 902
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. E. Turner and Cora Turner, et vir, Florrida Bank and Trust Company, a corporation, Fuquay and Gheen, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Seiberling Rubber Company, a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Ohio, v. City of Daytona Beach.
Judges: Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
J. E. Turner and Cora Turner, et vir, Florrida Bank and Trust Company, a corporation, Fuquay and Gheen, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Seiberling Rubber Company, a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Ohio, v. City of Daytona Beach.
175 So. 897.
Opinion Filed July 31, 1937.
Rehearing Denied September 2, 1937.
Ray Selden, for Appellants;
H. E. Couchman, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Terrell, J.
This suit was instituted by bill of complaint on the part of appellee to foreclose some improvement liens. All the appellants were named as defendants and entered their appearance except Seiberling Rubber Company, against which decree pro confesso was entered. The defendants, J. W. and Cora Turner, filed their answer, portions, of which were stricken. • A special master was appointed, testimony was taken, and on final hearing, the chancellor found for complainant and entered his decree accordingly. The final decree was subsequently amended and J. E. and Cora Turner appealed.
Twelve errors are assigned and argued. They are all closely related, but to discuss them in full would require a lengthy opinion that would serve no useful purpose. We have examined each assignment carefully and while we do not approve the proceeding as being in all respects regular, we are not convinced that harmful error was committed except in the matter of the allowance of attorneys' fees and title search. We find no authority for allowing these items.
The judgment below is accordingly affirmed in all respects except as to the allowance of attorneys' fees and title search. As to these items, the judgment is reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.