
    James H. Mathews v. George Hancock.
    Where the judgment on a note drawing twelve per cent, interest was rendered so as to bear only eight per cent, interest, but was rendered for a greater amount than the note called for; on error by the defendant, and a remittitur of the excess by the plaintiff, the judgment was reformed, at plaintiff’s costs, for the proper amount, to draw twelve per cent, interest.
    Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. DuVal.
    The facts are stated in the Opinion. The judgment was by default.
    
      Smith & Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Hancock & West, for defendant in error.
   Roberts, J.

Defendant in error recovered a judgment on a note bearing twelve per cent, interest, and the judgment is rendered so as to bear only eight per cent, interest. The judgment is shown to be excessive in the sum of eighteen yVw dollars, which has been remitted by defendant in error.

The judgment will be reversed and reformed at cost of defendant, so as to specify the correct amount after deducting said excess, and to bear interest in accordance with the note at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum from the date of the judgment below. (McNairy v. Castleberry, 6 Tex. R. 286; Jewett v. Thompson, 8 Id. 437.)

Judgment reformed.  