Beckman v. Skaggs (1882) · DecisionDepot

Beckman v. Skaggs

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Aug 30, 1882 No. No. 8,374Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action is entitled to recover interest on the mortgage debt until the date of the final decree and is entitled to recover reasonable counsel fees incurred for prosecuting an appeal.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff is entitled to interest on a mortgage debt up to the date of the entry of the final decree following a remittitur.
Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable counsel fees for services rendered in prosecuting an appeal.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“plaintiff demanded interest on the mortgage according to its terms, down to the time of the entry of the decree of January 16, 1882; and this we think he was entitled to.”

“Plaintiff also claimed a counsel fee for prosecuting the appeal to the Supreme Court, and proved that two hundred and fifty dollars was a reasonable fee for such services. This amount should have been allowed.”

Synopsis

Interest—Counsel Eee—Judgment.—.Upon an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of foreclosure the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for a larger amount.

Held: The plaintiff was entitled to interest upon the mortgage up to the date of the entry of the judgment upon the remittitur; and also to a counsel fee for prosecuting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court : Plaintiff commenced this suit to foreclose a mortgage on a lot in the city of Sacramento. Judgment of foreclosure was entered in the case, but for a smaller amount than was claimed to be due. Plaintiff thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court, [363]and the judgment of the Court below was reversed, the appellate Court holding that the judgment was for a less amount than plaintiff was entitled to. The remittitur sent the case back, with instructions “to modify the decree in accordance with the views therein expressed.” The first judgment was entered on the seventeenth day of March, 1881, and the judgment was entered upon the remittitur on the sixteenth day of January, 1882. When the remittitur was filed, and before the judgment was entered up thereon, the plaintiff demanded interest on the mortgage according to its terms, down to the time of the entry of the decree of January 16, 1882; and this we think he was entitled to.

Plaintiff also claimed a counsel fee for prosecuting the appeal to the Supreme Court, and proved that two hundred and fifty dollars was a reasonable fee for such services. This amount should have been allowed.

The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to allow the interest and counsel fee claimed.

Beckman v. Skaggs

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief