Court Opinion

ID: 9830250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:01:44.574566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.841076
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Defendant in Error for a Rehearing.
In the opinion is a statement as follows; “The most, we think, Mrs. Rose was entitled, in any event, to claim of O’Keefe on account of the loan was the amount thereof, to wit, $36,500 and interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from November 23, 1925, the date of the loan, to April 6, 1927, the date the note was paid.” The note not being payable until three years after its date, it is insisted in the motion that, in the transaction resulting in the conveyance o-f the North Texas Building to Mrs. Rose, she was entitled to demand payment of interest for the three years instead of to April 6,1927. We agree she was, and that the statement referred to was erroneous. But it was not an error prejudicial to rights of Mrs. Rose. The effect of her demanding and receiving interest for the three years would be to increase, and not decrease, the amount of her liability to O’Keefe.
It is insisted further in the motion that the testimony did not warrant the finding of the jury that Eldridge and Peyton acted as agents of I. E. Rose in the transaction whereby said I. E. Rose loaned the $36,500 to O’Keefe. We thought when the record was first before us that the testimony did warrant the finding, and, after considering -it further, still think so.
The motion is overruled.