Court Opinion

ID: 9828192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:11:53.441981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.441464
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Upon reviewing the evidence in this case, we find that we were in error in concluding that B. M. Fleming contracted, after the execution of the mortgage given to appellees, to pay interest on the price of goods which should be purchased subsequently from appellees. This agreement to pay interest on open account was made by B. M. Fleming'prior to the execution of the mortgage from himself and wife, Catherine, to appellees. The mortgage, by its terms, creates a lien for the security of the then existing debts of B. M. Fleming, and such as he might subsequently contract with appellees; and it can not be construed to comprehend within its operation a previous agreement by which B. M. Fleming should be charged interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum upon his purchases, from a given day after the sale and delivery of the goods. The judgment of affirmance rendered herein on a previous day of the term will be set aside and held for naught, and this court will now render such judgment as should have been rendered by the District Court of Galveston County upon trial of this cause on the 22nd of March, A. D. 1892. The District Court rendered judgment for appellees against the estate of B. M. Fleming, deceased, for interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the amount due upon account from Fleming at his death. Fleming died on the 10th of June, 1890, and in the statement of facts it is admitted by appellant that the amount due at that date was $2022.70, and upon this amount appellees allow a credit of $200, and the court found the account entitled to credits in addition (by payments made after Fleming’s death) amounting to $400, leaving a balance due in September, 1890, of $1422.70. Upon this amount interest should have been allowed at 8 per cent per *18annum from the 1st of January, A. D. 1891, to the 22nd day of September of that year, and from the 22nd of September interest should have been allowed on the principal and the accrued interest to that date at the rate of 6 per cent per annum; and the judgment should have borne interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum only on the amount rendered upon the notes and for attorney fees, and 6 per cent per annum on the amount rendered on the indebtedness found to be due upon open account-from the estate of Fleming to the appellees. In these particulars the judgment appealed from will be reversed and reformed as here indicated; and in every other particular it will be affirmed. The court allowed a commission of 10 per cent as attorney fees upon the amount due upon the notes, including the accrued interest at the date of the judgment, and in this there was no error committed. The contract was to pay 10-per cent attorney fees if the notes should be placed in the hands of an attorney, and by such contract the payor of the notes obligated himself to pay 10 per cent on the amount collected, including both principal and interest. In accordance with the request of counsel, we will file our conclusions upon the facts of this case in due time.

Reversed and reformed in part.

Affirmed in part.

Delivered June 1, 1893.
Writ of error refused by Supreme Court October 7, 1893.