
    NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent, v. DUFFY, Appellant.
    St Louis Court of Appeals,
    December 3, 1907.
    COSTS: Offer to Remit Interest: Taxing Cost of Appeal. Where a judgment was rendered against the defendant in the circuit court in which interest was allowed in excess of the amount due and the attention of the trial court called to the error in a motion for new trial without avail, the appellate court will not affirm the judgment on an offer by plaintiff, respondent, to remit the excess, on condition that the costs of the appeal he taxed to appellant, defendant.
    Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Eon. Robb. M. Foster, Judge.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      F. A. G. McManus for appellant.
    
      Geo. L. Edwards and Edward B’Arcy for respondent.
   PER CURIAM:

This action was instituted before a justice of the peace on a promissory note. It was appealed to the circuit court where the defendant failed to appear and judgment was entered affirming the judgment of the justice for the sum of $308.25. That is to say, $285 the principal note, and $23.25, eight per cent interest thereon from February 19, 1906, the date of the note. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which having been overruled, the case was appealed. An error was made in calculating the interest, which was computed from the date of the note instead of from its maturity, May 19, 1906, as it should have been. The difference in the interest was $5.70, and plaintiff offers to remit this amount from the judgment, the costs to he taxed against defendant, who appealed. We cannot tax the costs against defendant because the error in computing the interest was expressly called to the attention, of the court below in the motion for new trial, but was disregarded in overruling said motion.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.  