Augur v. Gulfport Land Improvement Co., 48 So. 722 (Miss. 1909). · Go Syfert
Search
Augur v. Gulfport Land Improvement Co., 48 So. 722 (Miss. 1909). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Kelso v. McGowan (miss, 1992-05-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelso v. McGowan
Miss. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Sparks v. Reddoch, 196 Miss. 609 , 18 So.2d 450, 451-52 (1944) (defendant entitled to attorney's fees upon dissolution of injunction); Auger v. Gulfport Land Improvement Co., 95 Miss. 292 , 48 So. 722, 723 (1909) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Francis A. Augur
v.
Gulfport Land Improvement Company
Mississippi Supreme Court.
Mar 15, 1909.
48 So. 722
J. H. Mize, for appellant and cross-appellee. Barrett & Taylor and T. M. Evans, for appellee and cross-appellant., Argued orally by T. M. Evans, for appellant.
Whiteield.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Whiteield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no merit whatever in the assignment of error on the direct appeal. So far as w:e .can discern, this has been a contest[*293] for delay, pure and simple. Wherefore the decree on the direct appeal is affirmed.

On the cross-appeal we think the court erred in not allowing counsel fees for such services as were rendered in procuring a dissolution of the injunction, and in not allowing the printer’s fees proven to have been paid for the advertisement. Of course, no such sum as $800 should be allowed. Only such a fee as 'is proper for the services rendered in and about the procuring of the. dissolution should be allowed. The counsel fees on the merits are secured in the note itself, and are not to be confused with the mere services on the hearing of the motion to dissolve.

The decree on the cross-appeal is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. ■