Warren v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 10 March 1888
• Citation: 17 P. 592,38 Kan. 768
• Parties: M. B. WARREN, as Administrator of the estate of Jared Mead, deceased, v. JAMES R. JOHNSON, et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

17 P. 592

38 Kan. 768

M. B. WARREN, as Administrator of the estate of Jared Mead, deceased, v. JAMES R. JOHNSON, et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 10, 1888

Error from Jefferson District Court.

ACTION to recover upon a certain promissory note. Trial by the court at the May Term, 1886, and judgment for the plaintiff for $ 1,211.50, for $ 145.35 attorney-fee, and for costs. The plaintiff, claiming interest since September 13, 1881, at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum, instead of eight per cent., as allowed by the court, brings the case here.

Judgment affirmed.

Keeler & Gephart, for plaintiff in error.

J. B Johnson, for defendants in error.

HORTON C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HORTON, C. J.:

On September 13, 1873, Mead loaned the Johnsons one thousand dollars for three years with interest at twenty per cent. per annum. For and upon this loan he took from them one note of one thousand dollars due in three years with twelve per cent. per annum interest, payable annually, and also three notes of eighty dollars each, due in one, two and three years respectively, with interest after maturity at twelve per cent. per annum. These three notes were given for the excess of interest over twelve per cent. per annum. In 1878-9 these three notes were taken up on payment of eighty dollars for each. Commencing in 1878, payments were made from time to time and indorsed on the one-thousand-dollar note. On March 26, 1884, Mead wrote a letter to the Johnsons saying that he would take from them only eight per cent. per annum interest after September 13, 1881. He said in the letter: "Cast all interest of the note at eight per cent. since September 13, 1881." In computing the amount due on the note and mortgage sued on, the district court computed interest on the one-thousand-dollar note at twelve per cent. per annum from its date to February 9, 1878, that being the date of the payment of the first eighty-dollar note. It then subtracted eighty dollars from the result, and counted interest on the amount remaining from that date to the time when the second eighty-dollar note was paid, and subtracted as before. The same rule was followed with regard to the last eighty-dollar note. From November 3, 1879, the date when the last eighty-dollar note was paid, interest was counted on the amount remaining at twelve per cent. per annum to September 13, 1881. From the last-named date to the judgment, May 28, 1885, it was counted at eight per cent. per annum.

The only contention in the case is, as to the rate of interest since September 13, 1881. The district court allowed only eight per cent. per annum; the plaintiff claims the proper rate to be twelve per cent. The statute in force at the time of this transaction, and at the time the judgment was...