Williams v. Gaston
This text of 60 P. 427 (Williams v. Gaston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, judgment was rendered in favor of certain defendants for the amount of certain mechanics’ liens claimed by them* and directing their payment out of the proceeds of the sale prior to the payment of the plaintiff’s mortgage. At the hearing of the appeal'the appellant consented to an affirmance of the judgment, and thereupon one of the respondents asked that he be allowed an attorney’s fee for defending against the appeal.
In Schallert-Ganahl etc. Co. v. Neal, 94 Cal. 192, it was held that the provision of section 1195 of the Code of .Civil Procedure, authorizing the court to allow “reasonable attorneys’ fees in the superior and supreme courts” is addressed to the superior court, and that that court has the power to allow to the successful party such fee for services in this court. In the present case, that court did make an allowance to each of the respondents for “attorneys’ fees” without indicating that it intended to limit such allowance for services in the superior court. If, for any reason, a further allowance is proper, application therefor should be made to that court, where the propriety of the allowance, as well as the amount to be allowed, can be more readily determined.
.The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 P. 427, 127 Cal. 641, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-gaston-cal-1900.