Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Sternberg Dredging Co.

• Citation: 196 So. 504,189 Miss. 73
• Decision Date: 03 June 1940
• Docket Number: 33421.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORPORATION v. STERNBERG DREDGING CO.

196 So. 504

189 Miss. 73

HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORPORATION v. STERNBERG DREDGING CO.

No. 33421.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

June 3, 1940

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; J. L. Williams Chancellor.

On motion to correct decree.

Motion sustained.

For former opinions, see 191 So. 94; 195 So. 322.

Dent Robinson & Ward, of Vicksburg, Green, Green & Jackson, of Jackson, Theus, Gresham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, La., and Arthur W. Coppin, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

Brunini & Brunini, of Vicksburg, and O'Niell &amp O'Niell, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

GRIFFITH, Justice.

With the original bill in this case, copies of all the purchase money notes given by appellee were exhibited and the only credit and the amount thereof was stated in the bill. The prayer of the bill demanded the recovery of a balance of $9,876.07, with interest thereon from the date of the filing of the bill which was December 4, 1934. There was never any dispute between the parties as to the execution of these notes or as to their amounts or interest provisions or as to the admitted credit and the amount thereof, the litigation revolving entirely around other issues.

In preparing the original opinion, Miss., 191 So. 94, wherein the litigated defense was wholly disallowed, it did not for the moment occur to us to look further than to the prayer of the original bill and the date of its filing as to the amount of the balance involved, and we directed that a decree be entered here for the amount sued for; and the amount was entered by the clerk from the data as above stated. The motion now made by appellant calls attention to the fact that there was a misrecital in the prayer of the original bill as respects the actual amount of the balance due on the date aforesaid and to the correction of that recital which was made in complainant's answer to the cross-bill, and calls attention further to the exhibited notes and the only credit against them, all of which when considered, with the proper calculations thereon, shows that the true amount of the balance due appellant as of December 4, 1934, was $12,570.14. The true amount due, as shown by the controlling portions of the record, was the amount for which we intended the decree to be entered, plus the stated interest; and under the authority of Section 755, Code 1930, we now direct the decree to be corrected to carry the amount last above stated with 6%...