Syndicate Improvement Company v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 22 December 1897
• Citation: 51 P. 242,7 Wyo. 228
• Parties: SYNDICATE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY ET AL. v. BRADLEY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

51 P. 242

7 Wyo. 228

SYNDICATE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY ET AL. v. BRADLEY

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 22, 1897

7 Wyo 228 at 235.

Original Opinion of December 22, 1897, Reported at: 7 Wyo. 228.

Rehearing denied.

POTTER CHIEF JUSTICE. CORN, J., and KNIGHT, J., concur.

OPINION

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

POTTER CHIEF JUSTICE.

The facts in the case, and the reasons urged for a reversal of the judgment, are set out in the former opinion. The particular objection made in this application for rehearing, is that the judgment is in contravention of Section 3, of Chapter 30, Laws 1895, which provides that interest on decrees and judgments, shall run at the rate of eight per cent per annum, and that it therefore contravenes the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution which guarantees to plaintiffs in error equal protection of the laws.

In our former opinion we held that the statute requiring this court, upon affirmance of a judgment to tax a reasonable counsel fee for the benefit of defendant in error, and also adjudge in his favor damages in such sum as may be reasonable, not exceeding five hundred dollars unless the judgment directs the payment of money, and execution thereon has been stayed in the proceeding in error, when in lieu of such penalty, the judgment shall bear additional interest, during the time for which it was stayed, at a rate not exceeding five per cent. per annum, to be ascertained and awarded by the court, was not invalid as conflicting with or repealed by the statute of 1895 above cited. We are still of that opinion.

If, however, that part of the judgment was erroneous and ought not to have been included as damages in the suit upon the supersedeas undertaking, it did not render the original judgment invalid, but the objection would go only to the amount of the recovery. As to that, we held the motion for new trial insufficient to raise the question, for the reason that the statute prescribes, as one of the grounds for new trial, "Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery," and we then held, and are still of that opinion, that such an objection to the judgment, or cause for new trial, is not included in a specification that the judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law, each of which are independent statutory grounds for new trial.

Neither the statute upon the authority of which the additional interest was ordered, nor the...