Court Opinion

ID: 9675889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:08:55.483717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:40.967510
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Rehear.
Counsel for John P. Strother has filed a very earnest petition to rehear, the principal point of which is a further .argument on the question of whether or not the proof as to damages was speculative and in part also whether certain of the damages sought to he proved were within the contemplation of the parties.
We are unable to modify our views expressed in the original opinion and, therefore, in so far as these matters .are concerned we are constrained to overrule the petition to rehear.
With regard to another feature of the case, however, the petition to rehear should he allowed. Having-sustained the insistence that the question of fraud in the execution of the notes and chattel mortgage was properly submitted to the jury and the jury having found the issue in favor of Strother, we should have held, and in fact intended so to do hut through oversight failed to mention it, that the notes and mortgage should he set aside and held for naught and that the recovery in favor of Burge should have been upon the original debt; also in view of the jury verdict approved by the Chancellor finding that Burge was in default in the performance of its contract, *410Burge is not entitled to interest on the original debt; interest as allowed by law as of the date of the decree below is allowed Burge on such balance as a recasting of the figures in accord with this opinion may show to be in favor of Burge.
Petition to rehear denied on the first ground, but granted on the second.