Pridgen v. Bonner
Texas Supreme Court
Error from De Witt. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges, Bonner sued Pridgen on a note for $190, with twelve per cent! interest after 1 January, 1860. The defendant made default, and on the 29th March, 1861, judgment was rendered for $200 92. The defendant prosecuted error; but he assigned no error, nor does he seem to have appeared in the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Error from De Witt. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges, Bonner sued Pridgen on a note for $190, with twelve per cent! interest after 1 January, 1860. The defendant made default, and on the 29th March, 1861, judgment was rendered for $200 92. The defendant prosecuted error; but he assigned no error, nor does he seem to have appeared in the Supreme Court. The defendant in error now filed the following paper: “ This suit was brought on a note made by the plaintiff in error for $190, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, from January 1, 1860. “ Judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtWillie, J.
—This suit was brought upon a promissory *800note for $190, due January 1,1860. Judgment by default was rendered against defendant below on the 25th of March, 1861, for $200 92, which was less than the amount of principal and interest due at that day by $17 08," the error arising from a miscalculation of interest. The defendant below brings the case to this court, but makes no assignment of errors. The defendant in error asks that the miscalculation of interest may be corrected, the judgment reformed and rendered for the proper amount, and suggests delay, and asks for 10 per cent, damages upon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wortham v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by2 opinions
- Findlay v. State of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Anderson v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1934