Court Opinion

ID: 9832140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:39:48.615848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:42.762440
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Since the cause below was submitted to the jury on only one issue, and in answer to that issue the jury found that only $86.35, had been paid on the note, and this finding was in accordance with the .testimony of plaintiff, given by R. C. Montgomery, we need only to consider whether under this finding usurious interest is shown to have been charged on the note and collected. The evidence shows that the original note for $879.85 was given August 8, 1921, with 10 per cent, interest from maturity. It became due October 17th thereafter. On December 14th the defendant below paid $50 on the principal and $12.35 interest, the interest being paid from October 17th to January, 1922. As we figure the interest for that time, it amounts to little more than was charged. Later the bank appropriated out of the defendant’s deposit $24 to pay interest from January 1 to May 1, 1922. Interest-on $629.85, at 10 per cent, 'for four months amounts, as we figure it, to $20.96. The amount of interest charged was only $3.04 more than the interest due. It would be for twice this amount that defendant could recover in his cross-action, at any rate. Wé do not think this court would be justified in reversing the judgment below for such a small error, if any. Montgomery admitted that $24 was an overcharge, but said that such overcharge was a mistake in calculation, and made unintentionally. De minimis lex non curat.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.