Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Orient Petroleum Co. v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co.

17 F.2d 263

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1927-02-07
Topic
estate-planning

PER CURIAM. Appellant presents no question that is not fully considered in the original opinion. However, appellee points out that the Supreme Court of Texas has settled the rule, in respect of an attorney’s fee stipulated in a note, tó be that such a fee is prima facie reasonable, and will be allowed, unless shown to be unreasonable, and cites to that effect Bank v. Robinson, 104 Tex. 166, 135 S. W. 372.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Orient Petroleum Co. v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
ORIENT PETROLEUM CO. v. WICHITA STATE BK. TR.,17 F.2d 263(5th Cir. 1927)
ORIENT PETROLEUM CO. v. WICHITA STATE BANK TRUST CO.
No. 4646.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 7, 1927.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; William H. Atwell, Judge.

On petition for rehearing. Petition denied.

For former opinion, see16 F.2d 417Page 264
W.F. Davis and George A. Smoot, both of Wichita Falls, Tex. (Smoot Smoot, of Wichita Falls, Tex., on the brief), for appellant.

Preston B. Cox and Joseph S. Dickey, both of Wichita Falls, Tex. (Cox Fulton, of Wichita Falls, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant presents no question that is not fully considered in the original opinion. However, appellee points out that the Supreme Court of Texas has settled the rule, in respect of an attorney's fee stipulated in a note, to be that such a fee is prima facie reasonable, and will be allowed, unless shown to be unreasonable, and cites to that effect Bank v. Robinson,104 Tex. 166,135 S.W. 372. Our original opinion is therefore incorrect in stating the Texas rule to be "that only a reasonable amount, and not the amount stipulated in notes providing for attorney's fees, can be collected, in the absence of proof that the party suing had agreed to pay to his attorney the amount stipulated in the notes sued on." The application of the correct rule, as it is now understood, would have authorized a larger decree against appellant; but it cannot now operate to the advantage of appellee, because there was no cross-appeal.

The petition for rehearing is denied.Page 345