Court Opinion

ID: 3658548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:10:58.549798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:28.287060
License: Public Domain

The defendant contended that the plaintiff could recover only $100 and interest, as the jury had found that there was a false and fraudulent representation as to the amount of the encumbrance on the timber, for the purchase price of which the last of the notes was given. This is true, but the issue was so worded as        (296) to call only for an assessment of the amount of damages to the defendant by reason of the false representation. It is not so framed as to permit a reduction of the amount of the note, as of its date, to one hundred dollars, or in other words, as the jury have merely assessed the damages, the amount thereof must be deducted from the amount due on the note, as of the time of the trial and not as of the date of the note. This was done by the court, and there was, therefore, no error in refusing to sign the judgment which was tendered by the defendant, nor do we find any error in the other rulings of the court.
No error.
Cited: Woods v. Finley, post, 500.