Court Opinion

ID: 9826906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:57:51.978331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:43.081980
License: Public Domain

On Petitions to Reheab.
On Petition oe L. & N., RailROAd Co.
 The L. & N. Railroad Company has petitioned the court for a rehearing insisting that it was error not to allow interest upon *163eaeb installment due it for the use of the rails and splices from the date when such installments fell due and payable.
One of the assignments complains of the action of the Chancellor in declining- to allow interest but it does not appear that this assignment was supported by any portion of the brief filed by the Railroad Company. It is a familiar rule that assignments made and not supported by brief will be treated as waived. However, we think the allowance of interest was a matter within the discretion of the Chancellor. Johnston v. Cincinnnati, N. & O. R. Co., 146 Tenn., 135, 240 S. W., 429.
If it be said that the Chancellor did not render a decree upon the basis of the one rendered in this court and, therefore, it is for this court, trying the case de novo, to exercise its discretion upon the question of the allowance of interest, we still think interest should not be allowed upon the recovery. For a part of the time for which the Lumber Company has been charged by our former opinion, the materials were not in use, and the Railroad Company, to some extent at least, was the beneficiary of the continued use of the materials in getting out lumber for shipment over it lines. Of course, it must be said that the presumption is that the Railroad Company earned all of the freight revenue derived from this source but we are of opinion, nevertheless, that the court should consider this phase of the relationship between the parties in passing upon the allowance of interest. Upon the whole case, we think interest should be denied except from the date of the filing of the bill. The petition of the Railroad Company is accordingly denied.