Court Opinion

ID: 9833930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:09:26.652072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.318038
License: Public Domain

*360ON MOTION POR REHEARING.
In disposing of the case we reformed the judgment so as to eliminate from plaintiff’s recovery on the note of 1892 any attorney’s fee. This was done under the thirty-third assignment of error. • We now believe we were mistaken in holding that it does not appear that the note provided for an attorney’s fee. In appellants’ motion for new trial, which is of course a part of the record, there is a recognition that the three notes sued on, and also the note of 1892, contained a provision for such fee. We refer to paragraph 12 of the motion. The statement of facts is not so drawn as to expressly negative the existence of such provision in the notes. The record disclosing in the form of an admission by appellants that the notes provided for attorney’s fee, and the judge having before him the notes, we would not ,be warranted in holding that he erred in rendering judgment for attorney’s fees, or in reversing the judgment in that respect. Further, we are inclined to agree with appellee’s counsel, that as to the note of 1892, the appellee’s brief does not complain of ex-cessiveness of the judgment by reason of attorney’s fees, but upon other grounds.
We doubt the correctness of our considering as evidence appellants’ admission of record made for the purpose of obtaining the privilege of opening and closing argument. In view of what is stated in the above paragraph, it was not necessary to do so, and we withdraw what is said on the subject in our former opinion, leaving the question open.
In regard to the matter of opening and concluding the argument we will add to what we have already said, that no injury appears to have resulted to appellants from the ruling of the court. All material confiicting issues of fact submitted were resolved in favor of appellants. The only matters in which appellee prevailed might, in our opinion, have been expressly so directed by the court as matters of law resulting from the testimony.
Appellees in their argument filed in support of their motion for rehearing show the calculation by which the amount of the judgment for $5208.33 was reached, and it appears that interest was calculated upon the unpaid interest notes. Appellants complain of this, for the alleged reason that there was no evidence that said interest notes bore interest.
The thirty-third and forty-third assignments of error are broad enough to reach the excessiveness of the judgment for any reason. But the above objection to the judgment is not specified. On the contrary, the statement under said thirty-third assignment declares that said interest notes bore interest at 10 per cent per annum from maturity, and such is a proper construction of the part of the record referred to. At any rate, this statp.mp.Tit shows that no such point as this was urged or relied on.
The motion for appellee is granted, and the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. Appellants’ motion is overruled.

Affirmed.

Writ of error refused.