Cox v. Mitchell
Cox v. Mitchell
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment rendered against him, on the grounds, 1st. That the court erroneously dispensed the defendant from answering an interrogatory, annexed to the petition, by which the plaintiff sought to prove that the defendant had agreed to pay an interest at ten per
We are of opinion that the court erred in striking out the interrogatory touching the defendant’s agreement to pay conventional interest. It has been settled in this court, that writing is not of the essence of an agreement to pay interest at ten per cent., but that the legislature only intended to exclude testimonial proof of such agreements. 6 Martin, 278.
It is also clear, that if the defendant neglected to answer the interrogatories annexed to the supplemental petition, the facts required to be disclosed, ought to be taken pro confessis. But as the case cannot be examined on the merits, we express no opinion as to the correctness of the verdict..
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled and reversed, the verdict set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial,, with directions to the judge not to dispense w'ith the answer of the defendant to the interrogatory touching conventional interest, and that the appellee pay the costs of this appeal.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- COX v. MITCHELL
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published