County of Riverside v. Brown

MARKS, J.

—This is an appeal from an order retaxing costs. It presents the question of the propriety of the allowance of $500 for attorney’s fees to each of three groups of defendants, the respondents here, in a condemnation action which had been discontinued as to them before trial.

The pertinent part of the memorandum of respondents’ costs and disbursements is as follows:

“Memorandum of costs on Abandonment—Claimed by Defendants P. E. Newberry, Mary E. Smith, Cora P. Sieber, George M. Owen and Mittie C. Owen. . . .

“Attorney’s Pees:

“Miguel Estudillo, as more specifically set out in the affidavit of said Miguel Estudillo hereunto attached and made a part hereof...............$2,000.00.”

On the motion to retax, the trial court fixed the attorney’s fees as follows:

P. E. Newberry, cost of legal service..............$500.00

Cora P. Sieber and Mary E. Smith, legal service ... 500.00 George M. and Mittie C. Owen, legal service....... 500.00

Plaintiff first questions the sufficiency of the memorandum, because, as is argued, it charged as costs $2,000, as attorney's fees, in favor of Miguel Estudillo and not in favor of the respondents.

We do not so construe the memorandum of costs as filed. As stated in the first portion of the cost bill, the costs were claimed by the respondents and included $2,000 attorney’s fees which were payable by them to their attorney, Miguel Estudillo. The use of the attorney’s name in the body of the cost bill was merely an identification of the charges for the services rendered by that attorney and was not a claim that the attorney’s fees be made payable to him.

Plaintiff urges that the affidavits supporting the memorandum of costs were insufficient to justify the trial judge in allowing the attorney’s fees, and that the allowance of $500 to each of the three groups of respondents was excessive.

[749]

The affidavit of Miguel Estadillo shows that he was employed as attorney for the respondents on January 4, 1937. The notice of discontinuance of the action as to these respondents was dated April 20, 1938. The attorney prepared a separate answer for each group of the respondents. He spent twenty days in investigating the facts and law of the cases, three of which he spent away from his office. He charged $100 a day for these services.