Court Opinion

ID: 9633390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:45:30.66437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:33.945290
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*176Frank L. Whitaker, Portland, for the petitioner.
*177David C. Landis, Portland, Misko, Njust & Bower-man, Oregon City, and Gearin, Hollister & Landis, Portland, contra.
McALLISTER, J.
The petition for rehearing prays only for clarification of the concluding sentence of our opinion, which said: “Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees in this court and in the trial court.”
The decree of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for the entry of a new decree providing that if defendants failed to pay the full balance of the purchase price the contract would be strictly foreclosed or foreclosed by judicial sale. We intended that the new decree would allow plaintiffs their costs incurred in the trial court on the original trial and any costs incurred on the remand proceedings. Those costs will be taxed in the trial court.
The new decree also should allow plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee for all services rendered in the trial court, both on the original trial and on remand. Of course, credit should be given for attorneys’ fees heretofore allowed in the trial court and paid.
Costs on appeal will be taxed by the clerk of this court. In this case the defendants agreed to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee both in the trial court and on appeal. Since the attorney’s fees in this case are not provided by statute they are not taxable as costs, but will be allowed by the court upon petition therefor. This court will allow plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee on appeal if a petition therefor is made within 10 days from the date of this opinion.
*178There is no merit in defendants’ contention that plaintiffs are precluded from recovering a larger fee than the $500 originally allowed in the trial court because the defendants deposited that amount with the clerk and it was withdrawn by plaintiffs. Since there was no cross appeal we might have increased the amount allowed but could not have reduced it. See Hofer v. Hofer, 244 Or 88, 415 P2d 753 (1966).
Except as herein provided, the petition for rehearing is denied.