Lee v. McCarthy
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from Superior Court, San Diego County; W. L. Pierce, Judge. Action by Lee against McCarthy and another to foreclose a mortgage. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
1Per curiam
This case is not distinguishable in principle from Clemens v. Luce, 101 Cal. 432, 35 Pac. 1032. The agreement providing for attorneys’ fees in case of suit is contained in the mortgage instead of the bond, and is as follows: “Should suit be commenced, or an attorney employed, to collect the said promissory bond, or any of said interest coupons, the mortgagors agree to pay an additional sum of ten per cent on principal and accrued interest as attorneys’ fees.” The mortgage does not purport to be given to secure these attorneys’ fees, and the agreement can have no greater force than if it were…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burkett v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Clemens v. LuceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jensen v. LichtensteinUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- Irvine v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Clegg v. EustaceIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Lyle v. WinnSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
- Russell v. FindleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898