Enterprise Seed Co. v. Leonard Seed Co.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1923
• Docket Number: 14459.
• Parties: ENTERPRISE SEED CO. ET AL. v. LEONARD SEED CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

220 P. 633

96 Okla. 122, 1923 OK 985

ENTERPRISE SEED CO. ET AL. v. LEONARD SEED CO.

No. 14459.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 20, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the plaintiff's cause of action is based upon an account which is denied by the defendant, who also files cross-petition against the plaintiff, and where the verdict of the jury is general and in favor of the plaintiff for a sum in gross, and the question of interest was not reserved by the court, and where there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury omitted interest, it will be presumed that it is embraced in the amount of their finding, and it is error for the court to compute interest on the amount of the verdict for a period prior to the date of its rendition and render judgment therefor."

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; A. C. Brewster, Judge.

Action by the Leonard Seed Company, a corporation, against the Enterprise Seed Company, a corporation, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Twyford & Smith, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Gordon Stater, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

MASON J.

This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county, Okl., by the defendant in error, plaintiff below against the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, to recover the sum of $2,024.56 upon an account for goods, wares, and merchandise, consisting of seeds, onion seeds, etc., which the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants between the 15th day of December, 1919, and the 26th day of January 1920.

The defendants filed their answer and cross-petition alleging that the plaintiff had broken conditions of the contract of sale, and that the defendants had been injured thereby. For further answer and cross-petition the defendants alleged that the plaintiff maliciously and wrongfully instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant Enterprise Seed Company, and that defendants were injured thereby in the amount of $5,000.

Thereafter the plaintiff filed a reply denying that plaintiff had injured the defendants in any way because of the breach of the alleged contract between the parties, and for further reply plaintiff alleged that the answer and cross-petition was libelous and had injured the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, for which he prayed judgment in addition to the amount asked in his petition.

Upon the issues thus joined, the case came on regularly for trial on the 1st day of April, 1922, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and fixed the amount of recovery in the gross sum of $1,300, to which the court in rendering judgment added interest at the rate of 6 per cent from January 26, 1920, amounting to $186, thus giving plaintiff judgment in the total sum of $1,486.

Within the statutory time, the defendants filed their motion for new trial, which was overruled, and the case has been regularly appealed to this court.

For reversal, plaintiffs in error present in their brief but one assignment of error, as follows: That the trial court erred in entering judgment in an amount greater than the verdict of the jury.

In opposition to this contention, and in support of the judgment of the trial court, the defendant in error cites Letcher v. Wrightsman, 60 Okl. 14, 158 P. 1152, wherein this court, in the syllabus, held as follows:

"In a case tried by a jury, where it is clearly apparent that the prevailing party is entitled to interest upon the amount found in the verdict, and it is unquestionably clear that the jury allowed no interest, and the dates from which to which interest should be allowed, and the rate of interest, are clearly ascertainable from uncontroverted facts, the court may compute the interest and add the interest, so found, to the sum found in the verdict, and render judgment for the aggregate amount."

To the same effect, he cites St. Louis, El Reno...