
    B. F. Pridgen v. William Bonner.
    Where judgment by default had been rendered against the defendant as maker of a note, and there was miscalculation of interest, whereby the judgment was for a less amount than was due on the note, and the defendant prosecuted error, but assigned no errors, on motion of the defendant in error, this court corrected the miscalculation, reformed the judgment; and rendered it for the proper amount, and, on suggestion of delay, awarded damages on the reformed judgment.
    Error from De Witt. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges,
    Bonner sued Pridgen on a note for $190, with twelve per cent! interest after 1 January, 1860. The defendant made default, and on the 29th March, 1861, judgment was rendered for $200 92. The defendant prosecuted error; but he assigned no error, nor does he seem to have appeared in the Supreme Court.
    The defendant in error now filed the following paper: “ This suit was brought on a note made by the plaintiff in error for $190, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, from January 1, 1860.
    “ Judgment was rendered by default on the 25th day of March, 1861, for the sum of $200 92, when the amount then due, as shown by the note, was $218. The plaintiff in error assigns no error. The writ of error was evidently sued out for delay. The defendant in error assigns as error the mistake in the rendition of the judgment in the calculation of interest, and asks that the judgment may, in that respect, be corrected, and that he may have damages for the delay.
    Holt & Finlay, “Attorneys for defendant in error.”
    Ho briefs furnished to the Reporter,
    
   Willie, J.

—This suit was brought upon a promissory note for $190, due January 1,1860. Judgment by default was rendered against defendant below on the 25th of March, 1861, for $200 92, which was less than the amount of principal and interest due at that day by $17 08," the error arising from a miscalculation of interest. The defendant below brings the case to this court, but makes no assignment of errors. The defendant in error asks that the miscalculation of interest may be corrected, the judgment reformed and rendered for the proper amount, and suggests delay, and asks for 10 per cent, damages upon the reformed judgment. Upon the authority of Wortham v. Harrison, 8 Tex., 141, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the plaintiff below, William Bonner, have and recover of the defendant, B. F. Pridgen, the sum of $190 principal and $28 interest, and 10 per cent, damages on the amount of said judgment for the delay, and all costs of suit. ■

Reeormed accordingly.  