Court Opinion

ID: 9865528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 18:49:25.267696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:48.874389
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
On petition for rehearing, this cause was again .reargued on the merits and additional briefs were filed. The record and the briefs have been re-examined in the light of the late argument and we find no reason to change or modify what we said in our former opinion.
Counsel for L. S. Gaulden insisted on rehearing that some features of the main opinion should be clarified. On this point, we deem it sufficient to say that while we did not discuss all the items in the Chancellor’s finding, his judgment was in all respects affirmed where it was not in terms reversed. It was in fact affirmed as to all items except the distribution of the proceeds of the “Mizner Mile,” being , item four, and the reversal as to this item went only to the amount of the fee allowed.
*507In reference to any expenses allowed Abbott for making the sale of Mizner Mile, we are confirmed in the view that the contract for the sale provides for the usual expenses incident to making such sales. Unless Abbott in some way actually paid income taxes on the fund awarded to Gaulden, certainly he cannot be allowed any deduction for that. If he was put to any regular and legitimate expense in making the sale that he had not been compensated for, he may make proof of same to the chancellor and have allowance made therefor if claim was regularly made for it. If claim was not made in the court below, it will be considered as waived.
Reaffirmed on rehearing.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.