Case ID: ala_178/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDERSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Southern States Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brannon.
    
      Bill to Rescind and Cancel Purchase of Shares of Capital Stock.
    
    (Decided May 16, 1912.
    59 South. 60.)
    
      Appeal and Error; Clerical Error; Correction. — Where a clerical error has occurred in the computation of interest, the appellate court will under section 2891, Code 1907, correct the error, when upon the transcript it can do so, and as corrected will affirm the decree.
    Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court.
    Heard before Hon. A. H. Benners.
    Bill by H. Brannon against the Southern States Fire & Casualty Company to rescind and cancel a purchase of the shares of the capital stock of such company because of misrepresentation and fraud. Decree for complainant, and respondent appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lamkin & Watts, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the equities of the bill and the finding of the Chancellor on the facts, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out. Counsel also suggest a mistake in the computation of interest, and for that reason the decree should be reversed.
    
      Gordon & Eddington, .for appellee.
    The equities of the bill have been settled on a former appeal. The finding of .the Chancellor on the fact ivas correct. If the court should affirm any error in computation, they will under section 2891, Code 1907, correct same at cost of appellant, and affirm the judgment as corrected.
   ANDERSON, J.

The equity of the present bill was

considered and upheld upon a former appeal in the case of Southern States F. & C. Co. v. Whatley, and which is reported in 173 Ala. 101, 55 South. 620. So the sole question to be determined upon the present appeal is whether or not the complainant has satisfactorily established by the proof the- material averments of his bill. The chancery court held that he did, and, after the examination of the evidence, we are.of the opinion that the decree so holding was proper.

It is suggested in brief of counsel for appellant that a mistake has been made in the computation of interest. It seems that the original amount subscribed was $2,500, yet the two notes aggregated $2,600, and- which included six months interest, therefore interest should have been computed from January 7, 1911, instead of July 7, 1910, and which makes a difference of $104. The' decree is hereby corrected so as to be for $2,600 as principal, and $190.65 interest, instead of $294.65, and, under the provision of section 2891 of the Code of 1907, the said decree, as corrected, is affirmed'.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur. ”