Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Royall
Decision Date | 11 May 1933 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 51. |
Citation | 226 Ala. 670,148 So. 399 |
Parties | UNION BANK & TRUST CO. v. ROYALL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Action in assumpsit by Dora C. Royall against the Union Bank & Trust Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hill Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Ball & Ball, of Montgomery, for appellee.
This is an action of assumpsit by the transferee and holder of a second mortgage against the prior mortgagee, who foreclosed the first mortgage under the power of sale therein and became the purchaser of the mortgaged property, to recover the balance of the purchase price, over and above the mortgage debt, the interest thereon, and the legal cost and charges incurred in the foreclosure.
The evidence is without dispute that the first mortgage was foreclosed in strict compliance with the power of sale; that the foreclosure was conducted by the attorney and agent of the mortgagee; that the mortgagee became the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, and that the attorney of the mortgagee who conducted the sale executed to the purchaser a foreclosure deed, for and in the name of the mortgagors, in pursuance of the expressed power written into the face of the mortgage, and by the attorney as "The person making said sale," in which it was recited etc.
The language of the power of attorney to execute the deed embodied in the mortgage is: "In the event of such sale, the said Union Bank & Trust Co., its successors, assigns, agents, and attorneys are hereby authorized and empowered to purchase the said property the same as if they were strangers to this conveyance, and the auctioneer or person making the sale is hereby empowered and directed to make and execute a deed to the purchaser in our names." (Italics supplied.)
The provision in the mortgage for the disposition of the proceeds is: "* * * And out of the proceeds of said sale they shall first pay all expenses incident thereto, together with a reasonable attorney's fee, then retain enough to pay said note and interest thereon, and the balance, if any, pay over to Frank Stollenwerck." (Italics supplied.)
The items constituting the recited consideration in the foreclosure deed, were the principal debt, the interest, taxes paid, which by the terms of the mortgage were made a part of the debt, the interest thereon amounting in the aggregate to $40,191.64, cost of advertising $24.64, and attorney's fee $4,021.63, making a total of $44,237.91. The foreclosure deed was delivered and recorded.
The plaintiff offered evidence showing that a reasonable attorney's fee for the foreclosure was from $500 to $1,250.
The evidence also shows that on the mortgagors' request for an itemized statement of the amount necessary to redeem, the defendant included in said statement the item of $4,021.63, as attorney's fee for foreclosure.
The defendant offered the note evidencing the debt secured by the mortgage, stipulating for an attorney's fee of 10 per cent. of the principal and interest "in the event the same is not paid at maturity and is put in the hands of an attorney for collection."
The witness Hill testified: ' That when witness returned to his desk and got the memorandum he added to Keyton's statement the advertising expenses of $24.64, and this changed the amount to $40,216.28, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC
... ... Russell, as coexecutors and cotrustees of the will and testamentary trust of Ernest W. Russell; and Myrtis Russell ... Hyundai Motor Manufacturing ... McInnis, Charles R. McInnis, Williams S. Newell, and the Peoples Bank and Trust Company, as trustee for the Adaline Hooper Trust A and B ("the ... St. Vincent's Hosp., 899 So.2d 227, 241 (Ala.2004) (quoting Union Oil Co. of California v. Crane, 288 Ala. 173, 180, 258 So.2d 882, 887 ... v. Royall", 226 Ala. 670, 148 So. 399(2) [(1933)], held as follows: ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Shelby County v. Baker
...the acts, words, and writing of the parties. Pruett v. First Nat. Bank of Anniston, 229 Ala. 441, 157 So. 846; Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Royall, 226 Ala. 670, 148 So. 399; Gilliland v. Hawkins, 216 Ala. 97, 112 So. 454; Harris v. Geneva Mill Co., 209 Ala. 538, 96 So. 622; Harraway v. Harraw......
-
Miller v. Faust
... ... v ... Callahan, 222 Ala. 240, 131 So. 799; Federal Land ... Bank of New Orleans v. Lloyd et al., 224 Ala. 48, 138 ... So. 417; Federal ... 101, 79 ... So. 493; Ivy v. Hood, 202 Ala. 121, 79 So. 587; ... Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Royall, 226 Ala. 670, 148 So ... 399; Wilson v ... ...
-
Garland v. First Nat. Bank
... ... Seals, 186 Ala. 514, 65 So. 151; Fellows v ... Burkett, 219 Ala. 601, 603, 122 So. 808; Union Bank ... & Trust Co. v. Royall, 226 Ala. 671, 673, 148 So. 399 ... In the ... mortgage ... ...