
    Linn v. Montross and another.
    In the absence of a statement of facts the presumption is {where a good cause of action i» disclosed by the petition) that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict of the jury.
    Error from Victoria. Suit by defendants in error on a balance of account. The account was principally made up of two promissory notes and charges of interest thereon. There were a few other charges, but the credit side of the account far exceeded them. The account was dated at New Orleans. There were no exceptions to the petition. The defendant pleaded a general denial and partial failure of consideration. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs for the balance of their account as claimed in the petition. There was no bill of exceptions nor statement of facts.
    
      A. P. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
    I. Tiie verdict gives interest upon an open account.
    IL The verdict on an open accouut upon a contract made in Louisiana allows eight per cent, interest, more than legal interest in that State.
    III. If the court find any error, whether taken advantage of below or not, they will not give damages upon suggestion of delay.
    IV. If the court reform the judgment, they will not give damages; a verdict .and judgment below requiring reformation or amendment excluding the presumption of delay.
    V. There is no statutory or common law making it incumbent on a party to .a law suit to seek a new trial before an appeal. He has his choice of remedies. Any ruling to alter the law in this respect is judicial legislation upon the supposed analogy between the District Courts of the State and the nisi jprius proceedings in England; which analogy is supposititious and not existing in fact or law.
    A. S. Cunningham and J. W. Allen, for defendant in error, suggested delay.
   Lipscomb, J.

The petition does not disclose the place of payment of the notes, nor is it shown by a statement of the facts. There was no motion fora new trial. The errors relied on are that interest was allowed at the rate of eig'lit per cent, when by the law of Louisiana it eonld not have been recovered at that rate. That interest is given on an open account. If the defendant in tiie court below had been dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury, he ought to have made a statement of the facts proved a part of the record; and if the evidence did not support the verdict, after a motion for a new trial had been overruled this court could have revised the question now sought to be raised. But in the absence of the evidence we have nothing before us by which the correctness of the verdict can be impeached. Wo do not know where tire notes were made payable. We do not know what was in evidence as to the application of the credits. We do not know but what the balance found on which the interest has been given is the balance on the notes. In the absence of all knowledge of these facts we are bound to presume that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict of the jury. The judgment must therefore be affirmed. We are not clear but that the plaintiff in error may have believed that he could have the questions presented by him revised in this court. We do not therefore feel authorized to say that the case was brought up merely for delay, and we give no damages.

Judgment affirmed.  