Case ID: f_218/html/0068-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PRINCESS FURNACE CO. v. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    September 8, 1914.)
    (No. 1196.)
    Appeal and Eebob (§ 1073) — Review—Harmless Error.
    The inclusion of interest in a directed verdict for damages for breach of contract held without prejudice, where the court might properly have directed a verdict for a larger sum under a stipulation for damages in the contract. ,
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4240-4247; Dec. Dig. § 1073.*]
    On petition by defendant for rehearing.
    Denied.
    For former opinion, see 215 Fed. 329.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § Number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indies
    
   PER CURIAM.

We are constrained to deny the petition for a rehearing in this case on the ground that the plaintiff in error was not prejudiced by the inclusion of interest in the directed verdict, because we are of opinion that the trial court might properly have directed a verdict for the full amount of the stipulated damages named in the contract on which this suit was brought. See Sun, etc., Association v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642, 22 Sup. Ct. 240, 46 L. Ed. 366.

Petition denied.