Opinion ID: 2136472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Thomas' fourth contention is the trial court erred in overruling its motion for new trial. The motion was based on insufficiency of evidence to support the judgment entered.

Text: In ruling upon motions for new trial the trial court has a broad but not unlimited discretion in determining whether the verdict effectuates substantial justice between the parties. Rule 344(f) 3, R.C.P. Only when the evidence clearly shows the trial court abused its discretion will we interfere. Schall v. Lorenzen, Iowa, 166 N.W.2d 795, 798; Vojak v. Jensen, Iowa, 161 N.W.2d 100, 105, 106, and citations. No abuse of the trial court's discretion is found in the record before us. Appellant has failed to establish any reversible error. On its appeal the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. V. The sole issue raised by the cross-appeal is Buffalo's claim interest on the $2450 judgment should run from June 20, 1969, the date of the sale, rather than from December 8, 1971, the date of the judgment entry. Buffalo's counterclaim alleged machinery valued at $5000 was not delivered over to it pursuant to the written contract entered into between the parties. Thomas by answer alleged all property belonging to Buffalo by reason of the contract of sale had been delivered. Considerable evidence on the issues was offered by both parties. The trial court's ruling on Buffalo's motion for interest from the date of the sale contract includes:   . A genuine controversy existed as to where the three machines came from, and this Court was required to make a factual determination. This Court is satisfied that a genuine controversy existed as to the ownership of the machines in question and that this controversy was not resolved until the judgment entry was filed therein. The general rule is interest runs from the time the money becomes due and payable. It may be allowed on unliquidated claims whenever it appears the damage was complete at a particular time. Weaver Construction Co. v. Farmers Nat. Bk., 253 Iowa 1280, 1292, 115 N.W.2d 804, 811; General Mills, Inc. v. Prall, 244 Iowa 218, 221, 56 N.W.2d 596, 598. The general rules are thus stated in 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interest and Usury, section 87, page 78: In the absence of a contract to the contrary, interest on money generally runs from the time that it becomes due and payable.   . Where claims involving money payments are unliquidated and involve sharply disputed items, it has been held that interest should not be allowed prior to a decision of the amount due.   . The only evidence of value of the three presses was the testimony of Walter that they were worth $2450. As we read the record he expressed the value as of the trial date. There was no evidence of value on any prior date. The trial court did not err in ordering interest from the date of judgment. Buffalo's contention on cross-appeal is untenable. Costs of this appeal are ordered assessed two thirds against Thomas and one third against Buffalo. Affirmed on both appeals.