Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Westerhoff

• Decision Date: 21 June 1899
• Parties: CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. WESTERHOFF ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

58 Neb. 379

79 N.W. 731

CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

v.WESTERHOFF ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 21, 1899.

Syllabus by the Court.

Directions for decree modified, and motion for rehearing overruled.

On rehearing. Modified.

For former opinion, see 78 N. W. 724.

HARRISON, C. J.

The adjudication by the district court of Seward county of the matters of litigation in this, an action of foreclosure of a real-estate mortgage, was appealed to this court, and submitted, and in an opinion filed April 6th of the current year (see 78 N. W. 724) there were set forth the decisions of the questions presented. A motion for a rehearing was filed, which is now pending. In one ground of the motion there is complaint of the portion of the opinion in which it was determined that the appellant was not entitled to 9 per centum per annum interest on the principal of the debt secured by the mortgage from a maturity of it, which became of existence by reason of a failure to pay an installment of interest (for the provisions of the note and mortgage relative to interest, maturity of principal, and other facts, see the opinion to which we have referred), and it has been suggested that we have in the determination of this point announced a doctrine in conflict with that established by some of the late decisions of this court, and have returned to the doctrine on this subject of Richardson v. Campbell, 34 Neb. 181, 51 N. W. 753, which was overruled in Havemeyer v. Paul, 45 Neb. 373, 63 N. W. 932, wherein it was held: “Where a note provides for a lawful rate of interest from date until maturity, and a higher and lawful rate of interest afterwards, the rate of interest which the note draws from its date to maturity is the contract rate for that time, and the rate which the note draws after maturity is the contract rate from that date, within the meaning of section 3, c. 44, Comp. St. 1893. First point of the syllabus in Richardson v. Campbell, 34 Neb. 181, 51 N. W. 753, overruled.” To the same effect, see Trust Co. v. Hanson, 46 Neb. 870, 65 N. W. 1058;Insurance Co. v. Fitch, 52 Neb. 88, 71 N. W. 940;Crapo v. Hefner, 53 Neb. 251, 73 N. W. 702. In the cases to which we have just referred, commencing with Havemeyer v. Paul, the sum of money loaned bore interest at a specified rate from the time loaned until its definitely fixed maturity, and it was provided in the contract of the parties that if the principal sum was not paid at its stated fixed maturity it should draw interest at an increased rate; or the lender said to the borrower, “You will pay me a designated rate of interest to a certain named date on this money, and, if...