Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Patton
| Citation | 35 S.W. 477 |
| Parties | MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. v. PATTON. |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1896 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Clay county; George E. Miller, Judge.
Action by M. C. Patton against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. A motion to require the clerk to issue execution against defendant for the balance due on a judgment therein in favor of plaintiff, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, was allowed, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A. K. Swan and Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett, for appellant. Harris & Knight, for appellee.
In May, 1889, appellee, M. C. Patton, instituted a suit in the district court of Clay county for damages in the sum of $30,000, for alleged personal injuries received by him while he was in the employ of appellant, April 29, 1888. On April 11, 1891, appellee recovered a personal judgment against appellant, in the said suit, in the sum of $8,750, with interest thereon, from the date of said judgment until paid, at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and all costs of court. From this judgment so rendered the appellant herein prosecuted an appeal to the supreme court of the state of Texas, which cause was subsequently transferred to the court of civil appeals for the Second supreme judicial district, which said court of civil appeals on January 24, 1894, affirmed the judgment rendered in said cause in the district court of Clay county (25 S. W. 339), whereupon this appellant applied to the supreme court of the state of Texas for a writ of error, which was granted; and on the 25th day of June, 1894, the supreme court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of civil appeals and of the district court of Clay county. 26 S. W. 978. On July 20, 1894, the appellant paid the appellee herein the sum of $10,688.60, —the said sum being the amount of the aforesaid judgment with interest from the date of the judgment rendered in the district court of Clay county, viz. April 11, 1891, to June 12, 1892, at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and from June 12, 1892, to July 20, 1894, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum; and, in addition to the said sum so paid appellee by appellant, all costs of court were also paid by appellant. Appellee accepted the sum of $10,688.60, with the distinct understanding and agreement that he did not thereby waive, or in any way prejudice, his right to receive from appellant additional interest at 2 per cent. per annum from July 12, 1892, which appellee claimed was due him under the aforesaid judgment. After appellee had received from appellant the said sum of $10,688.60, he applied to the clerk of the district court of Clay county for an execution for the balance due on the aforesaid judgment, with interest thereon calculated from the date of the judgment to the date of the application at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum; but the said clerk of the district court of Clay county refused to issue such execution, whereupon appellee filed a motion in the original case of M. C. Patton v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company in the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Indus. Water Authority v. Trinity Portland Cement Division General Portland Cement Co.
...in the statutory rate were held to have no effect on the interest rate as specified in the judgment. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Patton, 35 S.W. 477 (Tex.Civ.App.-1896, writ ref'd); Texas & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Anderson, 149 U.S. 237, 13 S.Ct. 843, 37 L.Ed. 717 (1893). In Herron v. Lack......
-
Sammons Enterprises, Inc. v. Manley, 19310
...change in the rate of interest does not apply to judgments recovered before its effective date, citing Missouri P. Ry. v. Patton, 35 S.W. 477 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896, writ ref'd). Patton is exactly on the point, except that it concerned the 1892 amendment to the same statute, which reduced the......
-
Seton v. Hoyt
...principal." See, also, State v. Bowen, 11 Wash. 432, 39 P. 648; City of Scranton v. Hyde Park Gas Co., 102 Pa.St. 382; Railway Co. v. Patton (Tex.Civ.App.) 35 S.W. 477; Bank v. Arthur (Colo.App.) 50 P. 738; Butler Rockwell, 17 Colo. 290, 29 P. 458; Murdock v. Insurance Co., 33 W.Va. 407, 10......
-
Trinity Portland Cement Division, General Portland Cement Co. v. Coastal Indus. Water Authority By and Through Bd. of Directors
...in the statutory rate were held to have no effect on the interest rate as specified in the judgment. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Patton, 35 S.W. 477 (Tex.Civ.App. 1896, writ ref'd); Texas & Pacific RR Co. v. Anderson, 149 U.S. 237, 13 S.Ct. 843, 37 L.Ed. 717 (1893). The Oklahoma Suprem......