Court Opinion

ID: 9831163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:52:13.781156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.994776
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In this motion it is contended that we erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial in that the notes tendered plaintiff and mentioned in the judgment are insufficient in amount under the pleadings and evidence of the defendant, and if plaintiff is compelled to perform the judgment as entered he will be deprived of more than one-half year’s interest. It is insisted that, in the event we should adhere to our ruling on this assignment, the judgment of the lower court should be reformed so as to allow appellant interest from the date of the contract, which the judgment requires to be specifically performed. In the original opinion we held that, inasmuch as no objection was urged on the trial of the case as to the amount, form, sufficiency, or validity of the notes tendered plaintiff, it was too late to make it for the first time on appeal. The proper practice would have been to make the objections during the progress of the trial, rather than upon a motion for a new trial; or, if not made during the trial, the plaintiff in his motion for a new trial should have asked, in the event of its being overruled, that the correction he made as is asked here. But, inasmuch as he who asks equity must do equity, which was proffered by defendant in his answer praying for a specific performance of the contract and as by the terms of the contract the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the notes from its date, which was, according to defendant’s testimony, April 30, 1908, we think the proper decree on the verdict, which is “Defendant is entitled to have contract specifically enforced,” should be to allow interest on the notes for $800, at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from April 30, 1908. We will, therefore, reform the judgment so as to make the notes mentioned therein bear interest from such date. As thus reformed, the judgment is affirmed, and the motion overruled at appellant’s costs.