Case Name: THARPE AND BROOKS, INC. v. ARNOTT CORPORATION, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-03-02
Citations: 411 So. 2d 1136
Docket Number: No. 14031
Parties: THARPE AND BROOKS, INC. v. ARNOTT CORPORATION, et al.
Judges: Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER and PONDER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 411
Pages: 1136–1137

Head Matter:
THARPE AND BROOKS, INC. v. ARNOTT CORPORATION, et al.
No. 14031.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
March 2, 1982.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1982.
A. Morgan Brian, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Judith Atkinson Chevalier, Baton Rouge, for Davidson Sash & Door.
Bernard S. Smith, Covington, for defendants-appellants-intervenors.
Tom W. Thornhill, Slidell, for Dossman, Keller, St. Tammany Elec.
Patrick J. Berrigan, Slidell, for Radcliff Materials & Slidell Refrig.
J. Patrick Beauchamp, Metairie, for Can-cienne.
Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER and PONDER, JJ.

Opinion:
PONDER, Judge.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court "to reconsider the mathematical error in Neumiller's claim" on a writ granted in part to Tharpe and Brooks, Inc. La., 410 So.2d 1145.
We have carefully gone over the evidence and the computations of this claim and are unable to agree that there is any mathematical error.
Neumiller had filed a lien for $11,980.00. In testimony,' however, he stated that his claim was for $11,280.00. We therefore adopted the lower figure even though the trial court had used the higher figure. From this we deducted the disallowed claims of $700.00 for truck rental, $780.00 for materials and $400.00 for wages paid to a third person, leaving a balance of $9,400.00, to which we added $12.00 for the filing of the lien.
Evidently, the confusion has been caused by the fact that there are two $700.00 figures involved in the computation, the $700.00 difference between the lien affidavit and Neumiller's testimony and the $700.00 truck rental. To accept the argument of Tharpe and Brooks, Inc., would add a third $700.00 item.
We intended to amend the trial court's judgment in this respect only to take the lower figure testified by Neumiller. We did not intend to deduct the unexplained additional $700.00 urged by applicant. We did not intend to deduct the disallowed items again after the trial court had deducted them already.
Upon reconsideration of the "mathematical error", we find no mathematical error and therefore affirm the judgment as already rendered.
AFFIRMED.