
    Frazier v. Campbell.
    It is not erroneous to render judgment in the aggregate for the debt and interest due at the time.
    Ministerial acts of the officers of the court subsequent to the rendition of judgment cannot be assigned as error.
    Error from Cass. This suit was brought upon a promissory note set out in the petition, in which interest was stipulated at ten per cent. Judgment was rendered for the gross amount of principal and interest clue at the time of its rendition, without showing what amount was principal and what interest.
    
      J. P. Henderson and T. H. Duval, for plaintiff in error,
    argued that the judgment should have shown what was the amount of the debt'due and what was the amount clue for interest thereon. Blending the principal and interest will compel the plaintiff in error to pay interest upon interest, which is unlawful in a case of the kind. Where a contract draws more than eight per cent, interest, (as it does in this case,) and judgment is rendered upon it, a proper construction of the act (acts of 1840, p. 9, sec. 5) requires that the principal should be found distinct from the interest, and that whatever interest may become due subsequent to the judgment and up to tiie time of payment símil be calculated on the principal alone.
    The executions do not follow the judgment, one being for ten per cent, interest on the judgment, the other for eight.
    
      Moseley, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

We arc of opinion that it is not necessary that the judgment should ascertain separately the amount of principal and interest, and that it is not error that it is rendered for the aggregate amount.

There are other grounds of error assigned, which, however, as they go solely to the execution and proceedings subsequent to the judgment, will not be considered. If irregularities and errors occur subsequently to the judgment, they may be corrected in the District Court. But they cannot be considered in this court until they shall have been made the subject of adjudication in the court below. (Cloud v. Smith, 1 Tex. R., 611.)

Judgment affirmed.  