Jaenke v. Taylor
Also decided on this docket: La., November 3, 1924 109 So. 814
Jaenke v. Taylor, 106 So. 711 (La. 1925).
Cited by
- Webb v. Franks Investment Co. 105 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Clulee v. Giambelluca 777 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
- Marin v. City of New Orleans 562 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
- Toler v. Pacific Intern. Petroleum, Inc. 465 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
- Anderson v. Police Jury of East Feliciana Par. 452 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
- Roth v. B & L ENTERPRISES, INC. 420 So. 2d 1094 La. 1982
- Garrett v. Pioneer Production Corp. 390 So. 2d 851 La. 1980
- American Bank & Trust Company v. French 226 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Banta v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans 200 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Parish of Jefferson v. Doody 174 So. 2d 798 La. 1965
- Parish of Jefferson v. Doody 174 So. 2d 798 La. 1965
- Katz v. Krauss Co. Employees' Pension Fund 161 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 149 La. 999 not in our corpus
- 90 So. 372 not in our corpus
Opinion text
On Application to Correct Decree, and, in Alternative, for Rehearing. PER CURIAM. The plaintiff moves to correct the decree handed down in this case in two particulars: First, as to the date from which interest is allowed on one of the installments of the price; and, second, that part which provides that in case the defendants shall fail or refuse to accept the title tendered then the judgment shall constitute the title and the plaintiff shall have judgment against the seven defendants for one-seventh each of the purchase price. (1) We were mistaken in assuming that the defendants had paid interest on all of the price up to December 7, 1920. As a matter of fact, interest was only paid on $3,500 up to that date. It follows that plaintiff should have interest on $6,500 from August 16, 19¿0. As this was an oversight or an error patent on the face of the record, the *121 same may be corrected without granting a rehearing. (2) In directing that the judgment should stand as the title in ease the defendants refused to accept title, we simply followed judicial precedent, which is so well established that we did not feel called upon to cite authority. However, we will refer to and quote from Kinberger v. Drouet, 149 La. 999 , 90 So. 372 : “If the plaintiff has the right to the title, it will be so decreed, and defendant Mrs. Drouet Will be condemned to sign the deed. If she refuses to sign, then the decree-will be the title.” See authorities therein cited. The rule is equally well settled that, where several parties purchase without specifying the interest of each, they are presumed to have acquired in equal proportions, and are oniy bound each for his share of the price. The defendants here are held as such purchasers. They are not bound as promoters of a corporation nor as in the nature of tort-feasors. It is therefore ordered that the decree heretofore rendered be amended by allowing 8 per cent, per annum interest on $6,500 from August 16, 1920, till paid, and a like rate of interest on $3,500 from December 7, 1920, till paid. With this amendment and correction of the decree, the rehearing is refused.