Case ID: johns_3/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tillotson against Preston.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1808.
    Where a declaration was of November term, 1806, an & an imparlance* over to February term, 1807, when the defendant pleaded, that on the ,7th January, 1807, he paid the plaintiff the several sums of money, &c. the plea was held good, without stating that he had paid the interest and the costs which had accrued. If a party accepts the principal of his debt he cannot, afterwards, sue for the interest'.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration, which was of November term, 1806, contained five counts for goods sold and delivered, 5kc. money had and received to the plaintiff’s use, ike.
    There was an imparlance to the first day of February term last, and the defendant pleaded, 1. Non-assumpsit; 2. That after the said supposed promises and undertakings, &c. to wit, on the 7th day of January, 1807, at, &c. he paid to the plaintiff the several sums of money mentioned in his declaration, &c. To this plea of payment the plaintiff demurred specially, for the following causes : 1. That the plea did not state that the payment was made since the last continuance, nor is it verified by affidavit: 2. That it does not allege that the defendant had paid to the plaintiff the interest or the costs of suit which had accrued prior to the time of payment, &c.
    
      Root and E. Williams,
    
    argued in support of the demurrer.
    
      Griffin and Hopkins, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The, demurrer is not well taken. If the plaintiff has accepted the principal, he cannot afterwards bring an action for the interest. It is not a plea puis darrein continuance, but a regular plea of payment after an imparlance.

The plaintiff may withdraw the demurrer and reply, on payment of costs.