Snell v. Warner, 58 Ill. 42 (1871)

Jan. 1871 · Illinois Supreme Court

58 Ill. 42

James T. Snell v. Elbridge O. Warner.

Interest—rate to be computed at. In rendering judgment on an account for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant, it is error to compute interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum,—it should be at the rate of six per cent per annum.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of DeWitt county; the Hon. Thomas F. Tiptoh, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Elbridge O. Warner, in the Circuit Court of DeWitt county. The declaration is in the usual form, for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant. Plea of the general issue; and a trial by the court without a jury, by consent of parties. It appeared from the evidence, that plaintiff, one Woodworth, and defendant were sued in Buchanan county, in the State of Missouri, by one Wheeler, who recovered a judgment against them for $130. 80. It appears that plaintiff was only a surety for the others on the debt; that he afterwards paid it, with costs and interest, amounting to $260.30. The court found the issue for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $306.10, and rendered judgment against defendant for that sum. And he appeals to this court.

Mr. E. H. Palmer, for the appellant.

Messrs. Fuller & Graham, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only error suggested, that is deemed material to be considered, is, whether the judgment rendered by the circuit court, is not for too much, under the evidence contained in the record.

The evidence shows conclusively, that there was due the appellee, from the appellant, on the 20th day of May, 1869, for money paid for the use of appellant, the sum of $266.30. The court inadvertently computed the interest on that amount, from that date to the day of the trial, at the rate of ten per cent per annum, when by law the interest should have been computed at only the rate of six per cent per annum. This error in computation, makes the judgment too large by the sum of $15.93. The rule is, that a remittitur can not be entered in this court. The party should take care to see that he takes his judgment for the correct amount in the court below.

We perceive no error in any of the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence. The evidence offered was competent, and full)r sustained the issues on the part of the appellee, and for the single error in the computation of the amount found to be due, this judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded

Judgment reversed.