{
  "id": 5200491,
  "name": "Aaron S. Oakford et al. v. Crammer W. Brown",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oakford v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "241",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3668,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "4187187f9c57251e5c94a30993e628b79e1f723db582d0840492a1190501c5ff",
    "simhash": "1:2c486781e06b3fae",
    "word_count": 618
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Aaron S. Oakford et al. v. Crammer W. Brown."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee filed his bill to foreclose a trust deed, executed by Zura Fuller and Frances H. Fuller, his wife, praying for an allowance of a solicitor\u2019s fee as provided for therein.\nAppellants were made parties because of some interest in the land covered by the trust deed. They answered admitting all the allegations in the bill, except that the complainant was entitled to solicitor\u2019s fee. The answer further alleged a legal tender of the amount due and that the same was on deposit with the clerk.\nThe proofs show a tender of all due excepting solicitor\u2019s fee. The court held that appellee was entitled to a solicit- or\u2019s fee of $75, and decreed that unless that sum, in addition to the amount tendered, was paid in ten days, the master should sell the property.\nUpon the ground that the court erred in allowing a solicitor\u2019s fee, appellants seek a reversal of the decree.\nThe trust deed provides that in the event of certain contingencies the trust deed may be foreclosed, \u201c and out of the proceeds of any such sale to first pay the costs of such suit, all costs of advertising, sale and conveyance, including the reasonable fees and commissions of said party of the second part, or person who may be appointed to execute this trust, and reasonable attorney\u2019s and solicitor\u2019s fees.\u201d\nIt is contended that as the contract provided for the payment of reasonable solicitor\u2019s fees out of the proceeds of sale, that without the case proceeding as far as sale, no fee could be collected. In other words, that in a suit for the foreclosure of a trust deed with such a provision for solicitor\u2019s fees the charge of a solicitor\u2019s fee for complainant could be defeated by the defendant bringing into court the amount of principal and interest and costs to date. There are authorities in other States to support that contention, but we can not approve them.\nThe evident object in providing for solicitor\u2019s fees in the-trust deed was, that in the event the mortgagor should fail to pay the debt, and the holder of the indebtedness should be compelled to resort to a foreclosure to collect these, solicitor\u2019s fees should be allowed to reimburse him.\nWe can not adopt a construction so narrow that the payment of solicitor\u2019s fee could be escaped by paying principal,, interest, court costs and advertising costs at any time before' the land was offered for sale.\nA fair and reasonable construction authorized the allowance of solicitor\u2019s fees for services that were rendered up-to the time of their allowance. Decree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur Keithley, attorney for appellants.",
      "B. F. Thompson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Aaron S. Oakford et al. v. Crammer W. Brown.\n1. Attorney\u2019s Fees\u2014Allowance of, Under Trust Deed, Before Sale. \u2014 A trust deed provided that under certain circumstances it might be foreclosed, and authorized the court \u201cout of the proceeds of any such sale to first pay the costs of such suit, all costs of advertising, sale and conveyance, including the reasonable fees and commissions of said party of the second part, or person who may be appointed to execute this trust, and reasonable attorney\u2019s and solicitor\u2019s fees.\u201d Held, that a fair and reasonable construction of this provision authorized the allowance of solicitor\u2019s fees in a foreclosure suit, brought under such deed, for services rendered up to the time of their allowance, although no sale of the property involved had been ordered or made.\nBill, for foreclosure. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stark County; the Hon. Nicholas E. Worthington, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 9, 1896.\nArthur Keithley, attorney for appellants.\nB. F. Thompson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-02",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 239
}