Collins v. Gleason Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1908 |
| Citation | 140 Iowa 114,118 N.W. 36 |
| Parties | COLLINS v. GLEASON COAL CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supplemental opinion on rehearing. Overruled.
For former opinion, see 115 N. W. 497.
In submitting the case to the jury the court said nothing about the question of interest on the damages which might be allowed, although the petition prayed that interest be allowed. After the verdict, which was a general one, the plaintiff moved that interest be allowed on the amount of the verdict, and the court added thereto the sum of $98, which represented interest at the rate of 6 per cent. from July 1, 1905, to the date of the verdict.
It is the settled law in this state that interest may be allowed on unliquidated claims wherever it appears that the damage was complete at a particular time, and in such cases it is right to instruct that interest may be allowed. Black v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co., 122 Iowa, 32, 96 N. W. 984;Hollingsworth v. Railroad Co., 63 Iowa, 447, 19 N. W. 325. In this case the petition was filed August 1, 1905, and the trial had in November, 1906. The evidence showed without question that the pillars or ribs of coal were removed from the mine in 1904, and that the soil begun to settle soon thereafter. The court instructed that the measure of the plaintiff's damage was the difference between the value of the premises immediately before the defendant commenced to mine and remove the coal and such value immediately thereafter, and the time covered by the witnesses in their estimate of such damage was limited generally to the 1st of January, 1905. The time of the injury being thus definitely fixed, plaintiff was entitled to interest on the actual amount of damage found; and, unless it can be said that the jury allowed interest in fixing the amount of its verdict, there was no error in adding it to the verdict. It was then merely a matter of computation, and the court could do that as well as the jury. The court having instructed that the plaintiff could only recover the difference in the value of the land before and after the injury, it will not be presumed that the jury disregarded the instruction and allowed interest. Hollingsworth v. Railway Co., supra.
There was no error in the action of the court; and the petition for a rehearing is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Insurance Company v. Barnett Brothers, Inc.
...Iowa decision. The insured cross appellant cites and relies on Collins v. Gleason Coal Co., 1908, 140 Iowa 114, 115 N.W. 497, 118 N.W. 36, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 736; Bridenstine v. Iowa City Electric Ry. Co., 1917, 181 Iowa 1124, 165 N.W. 435; Olson v. Shuler, 1923, 203 Iowa 518, 210 N.W. 453; G......
-
Demotte v. Whybrow
...... 112 Cal. 375, 44 P. 719; Keith Co. v. Fisheries Co.,. 27 Del. (4 Boyce) 218, 87 A. 715; Collins v. Coal. Co., 140 Iowa, 114, 115 N.W. 497, 118 N.W. 36, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 736; Murray v. Doud, 167 ......
-
Evans Fuel Co. v. Leyda
...St. 340; Catron v. So Butte Mining Co., 181 F. 941, 104 C.C.A. 405; Collins v. Gleason Coal Co., 140 Iowa 114, 115 N.W. 497, 118 N.W. 36, 18 L.R.A. (N. S.) 736; Piedmont & George's Creek Coal Co. v. Kearney, 114 496, 79 A. 1013; Silver Spgs. Co. v. Van Ness, 45 Fla. 559, 34 So. 884; Jones o......
-
Gosch v. Juelfs, 03-1745.
...N.W.2d 596, 598 (1953); Bridenstine v. Iowa City Elec. Ry., 181 Iowa 1124, 1135-36, 165 N.W. 435, 439 (1917); Collins v. Gleason Coal Co., 140 Iowa 114, 124, 118 N.W. 36, 37 (1908). In Bridenstine we stated this principle as follows: There is an old and general rule to the effect that inter......