Court Opinion

ID: 9828186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:11:45.981811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.407614
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Having failed and refused to pay the defaulted mortgages, payment of which appellant had expressly guaranteed, which fact appears of record; and having left appellee to its legal remedy of obtaining a .judgment against him for the amount due on such mortgages, principal, interest and attorney’s fees, which necessarily involved the employment of an attorney; and it appearing of record appellee did employ an attorney to obtain judgment against appellant on such defaulted mortgages; we are unable to agree with appel*151lant in his motion for rehearing that there is nothing in the record to show any necessity on the part of appellee of employing an attorney. Appellant is also in error in his assertion that we held in our original opinion that appellee could collect from appellant interest and attorney’s fees on the sum ($555.69) which appellant had on deposit with appellee. What we held was that appellant was hound to pay appel-lee the defaulted mortgages, payment of which he had guaranteed in writing, principal, interest and attorney’s fees; and we further held that he was not entitled to have his $555.09 credited on the amount he owed appellee prior to the day of judgment, because until that time he was not. only not seeking to have the same so credited, but was, on the contrary, claiming that appellee had no right of any kind thereto, and was seeking to recover the same free and clear of any right on the part of appellee.
Appellant’s motion is overruled.
Overruled.