
    Rocafort, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Cantero et al., Defendants and Appellants.
    Appeal from the Second District Court of San Juan in an Action of Debt. — Memorandum of Costs.
    No. 3023.
    Decided June 12, 1923.
    Costs — Attorney Pees. — It can not be concluded that the amount of $500 allowed for counsel fees in an action where the proceedings were as described in the opinion and the judgment was for $3,157.24, was either ex eessive or insufficient.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Juan de Guzmán Benitez for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. J. Martínez Dávila for the defendants.
   Mr. Justice Aldrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

According to the statement of the ‘ case in this appeal, the prayer of the complaint was for $2,000 as the’ principal of a loan and $872.22 as interest accrued up to September 21, 1921, and such interest as might accrue thereafter. A demurrer made by the defendants to the complaint was overruled and thereupon they answered admitting some allegations and denying others, pleading new matter of defense with regard to the payment of interest and praying that the complaint be dismissed. In the briefs it is said that the defendants answered the- complaint by acknowledging the debt but denying that interest was d.ue for a certain period of time. At the trial evidence was offered and it was agreed that the case be submitted upon briefs, the plaintiff having filed his, and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff moved for and obtained an attachment of property of the defendants. Finally, the judgment for principal and interest up to February 21, 1923, amounted to $3,157.24.

In view of these proceedings we can not conclude that the court below erred in fixing- the amount of counsel fees and, therefore, both appeals must be dismissed' and the order appealed from

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.  