
    Tear et al. v. Chambers.
    Where a judgment against parties cited in warranty, improperly allows'interest on the price paid by the parties evicted from judicial demand, instead of giving it from the date of judgment, but toe warrantors have not asked for the correction of the judgment, either in the inferior or Supreme Court, it will be affirmed as rendered.
    Appeal from the ©¡strict Court of Rapides, Boyce, J.
    
    
      Elgee, for the plaintiffs. Dunbar and Hyams, for the defendant and appellant. Edelen, for the warrantors, also appellants.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

This case does not differ from that we have just decided. The suit is for the recovery of.another portion o'f the land granted to the Tears., and the title of the defendant and'his possession is that of the defendants in the other case. As we have the whole evidence before ¡us,-it becomes unnecessary to decide on the bills of exception.

There was judgment for the plaintiff, and we have'been called upon to change the judgment against the warrantors, and allow $1,000 for the fruits and revenues, and $200 for counsel fees. Under the evidence we do not feel ourselves authorised in making any change in the judgment. We should not have allowed interest from the institution of the suit, but the warrantors have not asked that the judgment be altered in the court 'below nor in this court. Grailhe v. Hown, 1 Ann. Rep. 140. Judgment affirmed.  