
    Neil v. Bank.
    
      Interest on judgments.
    
    Interest on a judgment rendered in this state, on an obligation made and entered into in another state, bears interest according to the law of this state.
    (Decided April 11, 1893.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin county.
    Suit was brought in the common pleas of Franklin county by the defendant in error, against John B. Neil, upon a promissory note fcr $1,000, bearing interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum, executed in the state of Idaho, and where, by the laws of that state, 18 per cent, may be taken and reserved. Judgment was rendered for the amount of the note, with interest at the rate stipulated, 'amounting to $2,612.24, “to bear interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum.”
    
      F. F. D. Albery and E. L. Dewitt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. T. Holmes, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

At common law a judgment did not bear interest. Freeman on Judgments, § 441. Interest is an incident added by statute. It is given in this state by §§ 3180, 3181, Revised Statutes. By section 3180 judgments rendered on instruments reserving interest at a rate not exceeding eight per cent, per annum, bear interest at the rate stipulated in the instrument; in all other cases the judgment bears interest at the rate of six per cent., § 3181, Revised Statutes. Hence, a judgment rendered in this state upon a note executed in another state bearing interest at a rate, valid by the laws of the state where executed, bul greater than allowed by the laws of this state, bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent. only.

Judgment modified accordingly.

Dickman, J., did not sit in this case.  