The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-10

COuIt GuOIe says, III WAS llOG d
proper exercise of judicial discre-
ton to refuse the plaintiff in this
case mis- motion for leave to intro
duce this testimony. 1t was clearly |
an omission, a mere oversight, and |
the Court ought at once to have
suffered him to correct it" The
cause was remanded.
Breedlove VS.. Bundy, So Ind,
319, lays down the rule that it is
in the discretion of the Court for
the furtherance of justice to permit
the introduction of omitted evil
dence after the close of the argu-
ment.
In the case before US the trial
justice in his discretion admitted
the evidence, and we find no abuse
of this discretion. But this point
loses its significance when we con-
slider what the true rule for the
rate of interest in such case is.
'In suits upon judgments, interest
is allowed not as sum due by
contract of the parties, but as
damages, and follows the rule in
force in the jurisdiction where the
action is brought" Here the &C
ton was had in Massachusetts,
upon a judgment rendered in Cali
fornia. Shaw, C. j., in Barringer
VS.. King IS Gray, 81 said, where
the plaintiff in Massachusetts,
claimed seven per cent. interest
according to New York rate on a
New York judgment, "No, this is
not interest, but damages, and the
rule of damages is that of the Court
where the action is brought"
In Hopkins VS.. Shepherd, 129
Mass, COL, Gray, CD, allowed in a
suit brought on a Maine judgment
interest by way of damages from
the date of the judgment to the
date of the judgment in this action
to be computed at The legal rate Of
interest in Massachusetts,.
Mahurin VS.. Bickford, 6 N. H.,
SGT is to the same effect.
In Downs VS.. Allen, % Fed. r.,
81, it was held that lin an action
upon a judgment, interest thereon,
is, as rule, allowed by the Courts of
this country in the absence of COM
pulsory statutes upon the amount
of the original judgment as dam
ages for the detention of the money
and as equitably incident to the
debt"
In the Supreme of the United
States, Goddard VS.. Foster, II
Wall, 1913, it was held that in such
cases the rule of the lex fori pre-
scribes the rate of interest.
Two cases in California-Thomp-
son vs.. Morrow, 2 CAL, 101 (1852),
and Lavender VS.. Guild, 4 CAL, $50
| (1854)-are against this view and
against the great weight of au-
thority, and we decline to follow
them.
Having come to the conclusion
that interest may be allowed as
damages on the New York judg-
ment at the legal rate of interest
in this country, it becomes imma-
terial what the rate of interest in
New York was during the time
since the judgment now sued upon.
But as the plaintiff has asked only
for six per cent. she will be limited
to that rate.
The further question has arisen
whether interest is allowable at all
on foreign judgment.
| Interest is allowable by Sec. 1880
G. Code.
"When there is no express con-
tract in writing fixing a different
rate of interest, interest shall be
allowed at the rate of 8 per cent.
per annum for all moneys after
they become due on any bond, bill,
promissory note or other instru-
ment of writing for money lent, for
money due on the settlement of ac-
counts, from the day on which the
balance is ascertained, and for the
money received to the use of an
other, from the date of a demand
made"
A judgment is a settlement of
account. Mahurin VS.. Bickford, 6
N. H., SGT.
A judgment is a debt due. Klock
VS.. Robinson, % Wend., 157.
Interest is allowed on a judg-
ment as incident to the debt. Will
liams VS.. Bank, 4 Met, 800. This
was so held by the trial justice.
We therefore override the excep-
tons and affirm the judgment rem
dered below.
Thurston & Frear and P. Neu.
mann for plaintiff; F. M. Hatch
for defendant.
Honolulu, February 6, 1892.