O'Neal

O'Neal v. Hart

Good Law
116 Cal. 69·1897 Cal. LEXIS 509·47 P. 926
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 13, 1897S. F. No. 489California400 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

1. The mortgage which is foreclosed herein was given to secure the payment of a promissory note of the defendant, Hart, and contained a clause which provided that in a suit for its foreclosure “ a decree may be had to sell the said premises in the manner prescribed by law, and out of the money arising from such sale to retain the principal and interest, together with the costs and charges of making such sale, and of suit for foreclosure, including counsel fees, at the rato of five per cent, upon the amount which may be found due for principal and interest by the said decree.” This express provision that counsel fees are to be regarded as a part of the costs of a suit for foreclosure, and that, if such suit be brought, there shall be en *70 tered therein a decree to retain said counsel fees, created an obligation for their payment upon the mortgagor of the same nature as his obligation to discharge other costs of foreclosure, and authorized the court to include them in its decree as a part of the obligation secured by the mortgage.

2. The court did not err in refusing to direct that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay the amount of the judgment against Hart, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.