
    MANOGUE v. KEARNEY.
    Practice; Excessive Verdict; Arrest op Judgment.
    Where the declaration in an action ex contractu claims $3,185, with interest, and a verdict for $3,185.32 is rendered for the plaintiff, a motion by the defendant in arrest of judgment on the ground that the verdict exceeds the amount claimed in the declaration, is • properly overruled, as the 32 cents must be regarded as the amount of interest awarded.
    No. 1078.
    Submitted February 21, 1902.
    Decided March 12, 1902.
    Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a motion in arrest of judgment having been overruled.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in its opinion stated the case as follows:
    This is a suit at common law upon a promissory note and various items of account, aggregating the sum of $3,185, which is claimed in the declaration to be due from the appellant, William H. Manogue, who was defendant in the court below, to the appellee, Luke J. Kearney, the plaintiff therein, with interest on the various items thereof at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from various dates specified. After issue joined and trial had there was verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $3,185.32, being the sum of 3-2 cents in excess of the principal sum claimed in the declaration. Thereupon there was a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground of alleged excess over the amount claimed; but it was overruled; and judgment having been duly entered upon the verdict, the defendant has appealed to this court.
    
      Mr. Edwin Forrest for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Charles W. Darr, Mr. Joseph Salomon and Mr. Julius I. Peyser for the appellee.
    [Mr. Justice Ciabaugh, of the Supreme Court of the Dis-' trict of Columbia, sat with the court in the hearing and determination of this case, in place of Mr. Chief Justiee Alvby — Beporter.]
   Mr. Justice Morris

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The controversy is over the sum of 32 cents. Why such a ease should be brought to this court, when there is no substantial principle of law involved, is not apparent. It would appear to be an abuse of the right of appeal. And why the appellee did not prevent such abuse and the expense of appeal by remitting the paltry sum in controversy from the verdict and having judgment entered for the principal sum of only $3,185, passes our comprehension. It would appear as if both parties delighted in the pleasure of appeal.

The ease does not deserve serious consideration. It is plain that there is no foundation for the appeal, and no foundation for the motion in arrest of judgment, upon the denial of which the appeal is based. The claim of the declaration is for $3,185 and interest. The verdict is for $3,185.32. The 32 cents must be regarded as the amount of interest allowed. How the jury reached this amount, it is unnecessary to conjecture. Under the declaration they could have allowed considerably more, perhaps even several hundreds of dollars. Interest amounting to 32 cents was plainly within the scope of the declaration. The judgment will be affirmed, with costs. And it is so ordered.  