Court Opinion

ID: 7161221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:16:33.003286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:22.593581
License: Public Domain

On Rehearino.
HowEim, o.
A rehearing has been granted in this case because we had erred in the application of the rule recognized by us, in the mode of making the calculation, to-wit: The true rule is to ascertain what each had contributed, and make them equal in this respect, and divide the balance of the proceeds.
The folio wing.is the calculation under this rule: Net proceeds of cotton sold..................... .$10,846 58
Less expenses of transportation................. 908 67
---- $9,937 91
Deduct amount paid by Frigerio in excess of Orottes 2,264 29
Leaves amount to be equally divided.............. $7,673 62
Orottes’ share, one-half of this amount............$3,836 81
From which deduct items received by Orottes as follows:
Amount paid him by Frigerio.............$590 00
Amount paid by Frigerio................. 500 00
Amount of merchandise................. .1345 16 2,435 16
Leaves amount due Orottes................ 1,401 65
Instead of $269 50 as before allowed.
We see no reason for making any other change.
It is therefore ordered, that our former decree herein be amended by increasing the sum allowed defendant on his reconventional demand, from $269 50 to $1,401 65, with legal interest from judicial demand, and costs in both courts, and that in other respects it remain undisturbed.