Case Name: American Security Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Samuel S. Goldsberry, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1915-01
Citations: 69 Fla. 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: American Security Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Samuel S. Goldsberry, Appellee.
Judges: Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
American Security Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Samuel S. Goldsberry, Appellee.
ON REHEARING.
1. Expense incurred in obtaining an abstract of the title to mortgaged property from the date of the mortgage to the beginning of a foreclosure proceeding to enforce the lien of the mortgage is a proper item of expense to be allowed the mortgagee or his assigns in such proceeding where the mortgage provides for the payment of attorneys fees and all expenses the mortgagee may reasonably incur or pay because of the failure of the mortgagor or his assigns to comply with the agreements and covenants contained in the mortgage.
2. In appellate proceedings the burden is upon the appellant to make the error apparent, the presumption being in favor of the Chancellor’s decree.
Rehearing denied.
Gibbons, Mawwell, McGarry & Daniel, for motion.

Opinion:
Ellis, J.
Appellant filed a petition for a rehearing on the ground that this court overlooked the fact that the bill of complaint did not allege any expense incurred by the complainant for obtaining an abstract of the title to the mortgaged property, nor for attorney's fees. The mortgage which was attached to the bill of complaint and made part of it, provided for 'the payment of attorney's fees and all expenses the mortgagee "may reasonably incur or pay because of the failure of the mortgagor or his assigns to comply with the agreements, covenants" etc. of the promissory note. The record does not disclose that the bill for the abstract did not relate to the property. It was the duty of appellant to make the error apparent. The presumption obtains in favor of the correctness of the Chancellor's decree.
The application for rehearing is denied.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.