With respect to the cause of action on which the plaintiffs demand judgment that they recover of the defendants the sum of $125.35, the plaintiffs allege “that on or about 10 May, 1931, the plaintiffs discovered that their lands were advertised for sale as aforesaid, and immediately communicated with the defendant Sheldon M. Eoper, agent and attorney for Prudential Insurance Company, and protested against the exposure of their farm for sale; that the said Sheldon M. Eoper, acting as attorney and agent for said defendant, informed the plaintiffs that the sale would be made at the time and place as advertised unless the plaintiffs paid to him the sum of $125.35, covering a commissioner’s fee and the costs of advertisement; and that plaintiffs, not being advised of their rights, and relying upon the correctness and uprightness of the statements of the said Sheldon M. Eoper, procured and caused to be paid over to him as attorney and agent of the Prudential Insurance Company the sum of $125.35, and that by reason of said payment of money wrongfully and fraudulently exacted as aforesaid from the plaintiffs by the said Sheldon M. Eoper, attorney and agent for his codefendant, the said sale was abandoned.”
It appears from this allegation that the sum of $125.35 was voluntarily paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants. No facts are alleged *559tending to show that the payment was induced by fraud on the part of the defendants, or by any mistake on the part of the plaintiffs. Upon payment of the sum agreed upon by the parties, the sale was called off. It is manifest that plaintiffs are not now entitled to recover of the defendants the sum which they paid voluntarily, and for which they have received the consideration agreed upon.
With respect to the cause of action on which the plaintiffs demand judgment that they recover of the defendants damages in the sum of $5,000, the plaintiffs allege “that the defendants in causing the lands of the plaintiffs to be advertised for sale, as set forth in paragraph 5 of this complaint, were acting in a fraudulent, unlawful, and high-handed manner in their disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs and with intent to embarrass and humiliate the plaintiffs; that said unwarranted advertisement of plaintiffs’ said lands was due, as plaintiffs believe and allege, to the determination and desire of the defendants to embarrass and harass the plaintiffs, and to improperly, unlawfully, and fraudulently exact and extort from plaintiffs the said sum of $125.35.”
It appears from the allegations of the complaint that defendants had a right in law and in equity to cause the lands of the plaintiffs to be advertised for sale by the trustee in the deed of trust, which plaintiffs had executed to secure their note to the defendant, the Prudential Insurance Company. The note was long past due, and plaintiffs’ application for a loan out of which the note was to be paid had been pending for several months, with no assurance to defendants that the application would be approved. If plaintiffs suffered loss by the advertisement of their lands, the defendants were not liable for any damages resulting from such loss. The principle of damnum absque injuria is applicable.
There was no error in the judgment sustaining the demurrer as to the “second cause of action” alleged in the complaint.
There was error in the judgment overruling the demurrer as to the “third cause of action” alleged in the complaint. It follows that the judgment is
Affirmed in plaintiffs’ appeal.
Reversed in defendants’ appeal.
Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.