Augur v. Gulfport Land Improvement Co.
Augur v. Gulfport Land Improvement Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no merit whatever in the assignment of error on the direct appeal. So far as w:e .can discern, this has been a contest
On the cross-appeal we think the court erred in not allowing counsel fees for such services as were rendered in procuring a dissolution of the injunction, and in not allowing the printer’s fees proven to have been paid for the advertisement. Of course, no such sum as $800 should be allowed. Only such a fee as 'is proper for the services rendered in and about the procuring of the. dissolution should be allowed. The counsel fees on the merits are secured in the note itself, and are not to be confused with the mere services on the hearing of the motion to dissolve.
The decree on the cross-appeal is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. ■
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Francis A. Augur v. Gulfport Land Improvement Company
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Chancery Practice. Deed of trust. Sale hy trustee. Injunction. Dissolution. Damages. Solicitor’s fee. Advertisement of sale. Where an injunction, restraining a sale under a deed of trust was obtained after the property had been advertised for sale, was dissolved, the defendant was entitled to recover as damages counsel fees for services alone in procuring the dissolution of the injunction and the costs of the advertisement of the sale.