Case Name: G. L. MIX v. HENRY MILLER
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881
Citations: 57 Cal. 356
Docket Number: No. 6,638
Parties: G. L. MIX v. HENRY MILLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
[No. 6,638.
Department One.]
G. L. MIX v. HENRY MILLER.
Interest—Damages.—In an action upon quantum meruit, the Court found that on a specified day a certain sum was due the plaintiff. Meld, that he was entitled to interest from said day.
Appeal from a judgment, and order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Daixgerfield, J.
After the decision, the appellant filed his petition that the appeal be reheard in Bank, and the application was denied.
John Reynolds, and S. O. Houghton, for Appellant.
The demand sued on was unliquidated, and the allowance of interest was error. (Doyle's Adm'rs v. St. James Church, 9 Wend. 179; 5 Cowen, 587.)
S. W. Holladay, for Respondent.
The damages were made certain by the findings, and the right to interest is determined by Civil Code, § 3287.

Opinion:
The Court:
This was an action to recover the value of services for making a search and abstract of the Las Animas rancho, and for money expended for traveling expenses, stationery, board, and assistants.
The Court below found, among other facts, that the work was completed in a workmanlike and professional manner, on the 20th of September, 1876; that the abstract was on that day delivered to the defendant, who received the same and was satisfied with it; that the services rendered were reasonably worth $10,000; that there had been paid on account of them $2,800, leaving due and unpaid a balance of $7,200 on the 20th day of September, 1876, for which, with interest from that date, judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
It is assigned as errors: That there was a defect of parties plaintiff; that the findings are not justified by the evidence; and that the Court erred in allowing interest. Upon the first two grounds there is a substantial conflict of evidence. Plaintiff was entitled to interest from the day that his demand became due. (§ 3287, Civ. Code.)
Judgment and order affirmed.