
    GUILFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, OF STUTSMAN COUNTY, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, a Political Corporation, Respondent, v. DAKOTA TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.
    (181 N. W. 589.)
    Surety on bond.
    
    The same question of law being involved in this cause as has heretofore been considered, in Stutsman County v. Dakota Trust Co. ante, 228, the judgment herein is modified upon the principles of law considered and determined in such case.
    Opinion filed January 24, 1921.
    Action to recover. on a surety bond in District Court, Stutsman County, Coffey, J.
    Defendant has appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    Judgment modified and affirmed.
    
      Lawrence & Murphy, for appellant.
    Moneys after due bear interest at the same rate as before maturity, and the statute rate of interest takes effect after the maturity of the obligation only in the event that there is no interest rate fixed in the contract, to be paid either before or after maturity. Overton v. Bolton (Tcnn.) 24 Am. Rep. 373; Hubbard v. Calahan, 42 Conn. 534, 19 Am. Rep.- 575; Hopkins v. Crittendon, 10 Tex. 189; Findley v. Hall, 12 Ohio, 610; Spencer v. Maxfield, 16 Wis. 178; Adams v. Way, 33 Conn. 431; Cornwall v. Sac County, 97 U. S. 61.
    
      John IF. Carr, for respondent.
    The contract rate of interest governs until the surety is notified of default of the principal, and demand is made upon the surety for payment. Dickinson v. White, 23 N. D. 523, 143 N. W. 754; United States Fidelity & G. Co. v. Pensacola (Fla.) Ann. Cas. 191GB, 1236.
   Per Curiam.

This cause was heretofore before this court; 46 N. D. 307, 178 N. W. 727. The same question of law is involved in this case as has just been considered in Stutsman County v. Dakota Trust Co. ante, 228, 181 N. W. 586. The decision in that case governs in this case. It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be modified by the allowance of interest at 7 per cent per annum upon the principal demand until July 1, 1915, and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum, and, as so modified, that it be affirmed. Neither party will recover costs upon this appeal.

Robinson, Oh. J., and Bronson, Christianson, and Birdzeix, JJ., concur.

Grace, J.

(dissenting). I disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the majority opinion. The reasons for my dissent in this case are largely similar to those stated in Stutsman County v. Dakota Trust Co. ante, 228, 181 N. W. 586.  