A stipulation in the mortgage instrument, or in the bond or note, that, upon foreclosure of the mortgage, there shall be included in the decree the amount of a fee for attorney's services in the foreclosure proceeding, is valid in the majority of states,8 though in some such a provision has been regarded as against public policy and invalid.9 That the amount of the fee is named in such stipulation is not, it has been held, conclusive upon the court, and it may allow such less sum as may to it seem reasonable.10

8. Mason v. Luce, 116 Cal. 232, 48 Pac. 72; Durham v. Stephenson, 41 Fla. 112, 25 So. 284; Lewis v. Sutton, 21 Idaho, 541, 122 Pac. 911; Barry v. Guild, 126 111. 439, 2 L. R. A. 334, 18 N. E. 759; Tho-len v. Duffy, 7 Kan. 405; Bowie v. Hall, 69 Md. 433, 1 L. R. A. 546, 9 Am. St. Rep. 433, 16 Atl. 64; Murray v. Chamberlain, 67 Minn. 12, 69 N. W. 474; Gourley v. Williams, 46 Okla. 629, 149 Pac. 229; McAllister's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 204; Galligan v. Heath, 260 Pa. St. 457, 103 Atl. 878; Branyan v. Kay, 33 S. C. 283, 11 S. E. 970; Carolina Spence Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co, 139 Tenn. 248, 201 S. W. 770; Miner v. Paris Exchange Bank, 53 Tex. 559; Gordon v. Decker, 19 Wash. 188, 52 Pac. 856.

9. Jarvis v. Southern Grocery Co., 63 Ark. 225, 38 S. W. 148; Thomasson v. Townsend, 10 Bush (Ky.) 114; Kittermaster v. Bros-sard, 105 Mich. 219, 55 Am. St. Rep. 437, 63 N. W. 75; Security Co. of Hartford v. Eyer, 36 Neb. 507, 38 Am. St. Rep. 735, 54 N. W. 838; Turner v. Boger, 126 N C. 300, 49 L. R. A. 590, 35 S. E. 592; Leavans v. Ohio Nat. Bank, 50 Ohio St. 591, 34 N. E. 1089.

10. Edwards v. Grand, 121 Cal. 254, 53 Pac. 796; Dorn v. Ross, 177 111. 225, 52 N. E. 321; Daly v. Maitland, 88 Pa. St. 384. 32 Am. Rep. 457; Amalgamated Gold Mines Co. v. Ridgely, 100 Wash. 99, 170 Pac. 355. See Gibson v. Southwestern Land Co., 89 Wi3. 49, 61 N. W. 282.