Court Opinion

ID: 9447844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:45:46.088837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:12.627036
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
The petition for rehearing is denied. We have a belief that substantial justice will be done if our amended opinion of December 8, 1960, is followed.
While the cash value of the property was probably about $75,000 in 1929, certainly, with almost nothing down and about 68 years of payments, a sale on such contingencies would call for a much higher price tag than the normal market value, and so speculative a sale would not carry a cheap interest rate. A seller was bound to lose, having consented to subordination of a mortgage to be placed on the property by the “purchaser” of the property — if the market went down.
We regard the interest rate fixed here as having little precedent value, because we would assume the government hereafter will normally cooperate on fixing a reasonable interest rate, if it accepts the principle of allowing interest when it recasts. And, from what we have seen of this case, and we have seen a lot of it, we do not regard the rate as unfair, although normally it would not be our function to fix it.