gno.law

Treadwell v. Treadwell

California Supreme Court · S.F. No. 1895. · 1901-09-13 · Published · 66 P. 197 · 134 Cal. 158 · 1901 Cal. LEXIS 734

IVAN TREADWELL, Appellant, v. JAMES P. TREADWELL Et Al., Respondents

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
Trial judge
J. M. Seawell
Outcome
affirmed — the judgment is affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Charles H. Garoutte (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Garoutte

GAROUTTE, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment which allows three referees, in the matter of the partition of certain lands, five thousand dollars each, as compensation for services rendered. It is claimed that the compensation allowed is too great.

The lands to be partitioned consisted of seventeen separate. tracts, situated in the city and county of San Francisco, of the value of about eight hundred thousand dollars. These referees testified that about one year was occupied in doing the work, and that their services were reasonably worth seven thousand five hundred dollars each. There was some evidence offered by appellant which conflicted with that of the referees. But it cannot be said to even preponderate against them. In a case of this character, as in fixing the amount of an attorney’s fee, the trial court is allowed a wide discretion, and upon appeal a plain abuse of that discretion must appear, or the judgment will be affirmed. This is settled law.

(Freese v. Pennie, 110 Cal. 467;

Estate of Byrne, 122 Cal. 260.) By the record it is not disclosed that the trial court, in the rendition of its judgment, abused the discretion vested in it, and for that reason the judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by