Court Opinion

ID: 9864442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:07:54.171674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:15.885039
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Rehearing It is insisted the court overlooked two items claimed by appellee and allowed by the chancellor: one for $1,263.26, the other for $496.84. An agreed statement is that $1,263.26 was paid as attorney’s fee incident to the bond issue, in defending 'a chancery suit, and for expenses of the attorneys—the last item being $13.26 for travel. The highway department’s report of August 7, 1941, prepared and filed under authority of Act 385, shows total cost of the district to have been $115,314.62. State aid formerly received, as shown by treasury records, was $106-,022.40. The difference between cost and payments is $9,292.22. Included in the total of $115,314.62 was $1,500 as an attorney’s fee, $5,387.85 for engineering, and $1,166.53 as laboratory costs; hence, when the aivard of $9,292.22 was arrived at by subtracting $106,022.40 from $115,314.62, an attorney’s fee and the other itéms referred to were included. The agreed statement, however, concedes that $1,-263.26 was paid to attorneys, and this seems to be in addition to the allowed charge of $1,500. It was not, strictly, a part of construction cost, although funds available for construction were reduced to the extent of the payment. Since Act 385 directs the commission to allow attorneys’ fee, a laboratory testing costs, and engineering fees, it would probably be too technical to say the iegislature intended that attorney fees incident to creation of the district should he paid, but that fees for approving-bonds and defending* legality of the district' should be excluded. It will be observed that the Act, in referring to attorneys, uses the plural possessive (attorneys’). The second item relates to $865.77 claimed to have been expended for extra work, $368.93 of which was allowed.- Payment of the difference of $496.84 is asked. The agreed statement is : ‘ ‘. . . there is no showing anywhere as to what extra work was done amounting to $49-6.84, and for this reason' the highway department refused [to approve it”]. The reason assigned by the highway department is sufficient. The opinion of January 26, 1942, in cause No. 6717, is modified by directing* inclusion of the fee of $1,263.26. In other réspects the petition for rehearing is denied.