Court Opinion

ID: 9641659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:37:19.10535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.996747
License: Public Domain

GRAY, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree to a limited extent with the holding of the majority. There is no explanation of the charge of $51 other than that it was “for court appearance in the trial.” The order makes no provision for the payment of fees for such appearance and there is no suggestion such appearance was made by reason of any contract to appear as an expert witness. This amount should be deducted from the total charge.
It is my opinion that the words “his usual and customary fees” used in the order must be construed to mean “the” usual and customary fees charged by licensed land surveyors for doing the same or similar kind of work as was done by appellant. The amount of appellant’s charges must be sustained if at all by evidence showing that the fees charged meet the test of being the usual and customary fees charged by licensed land surveyors for doing the same or similar work. This was a question for the trial court and he no doubt resolved it against appellant. The most that the evidence referred to in the majority opinion can be construed to mean is that the charges were reasonable. Mr. Seaholm said he did not know what charges were made by other named surveyors and appellant did not testify to charges made by others. The order makes no reference to “reasonable charges.”
It is my opinion that the record does not contain evidence sufficient to justify this Court’s rendition of a judgment for appellant. Accordingly I would reverse and remand the cause.