Case ID: scl_4/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bay, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1807.
    Evans and Co. v. Holliman.
    The plaintiff sued by summary process, on a promissory note, which did not express any thing as to interest. Upon calculating the legal interest due, that added to the principal, amounted to more than £20. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court; but as the plaintiff did not claim interest by his petition, and interest was not stipulated expressly to be paid by the terms of the contract, the District Court gave him a decree for the principal, without interest; and on motion to reverse the decree, it was refused. Interest was not part of the contract, except by inference.
    Summary process, in Edgefield district, before Trezevant, J. Plaintiff sued on a promissory note, in which nothing was said about interest. Upon calculating legal interest on the principal sum from the time it was payable, it appeared that the principal and interest would exceed £20. The defendant objected to the summary jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff said he did not claim interest, and that interest was not stipulated to be paid by the contract. The judge decreed for the plaintiff the principal sum, without interest. The motion in this court was to reverse the said decree, and Egan, for the defendant, contended that although there was no express stipulation in the contract that interest should be paid, yet it was tacitly included, being the legal effect of the contract, and that the plaintiff could not relinquish this part of the contract any more than any other part of it, for the purpose of reducing his demand within the summary jurisdiction of the court.
   Bay, J.,

delivered the opinion of the whole court, except Wilds, J., absent, 28th April, 1807. By the contract, the sum stipulated to be paid, was not to carry interest. After the sum became pay. able, interest was demandable by the legal operation of the contract; not strictly by the terms of the contract, but rather by way of damages for the breach of it. These damages the plaintiff may either claim or relinquish, as he may choose; they do not necessarily form a part of the contract.

Note. See 2 Dallas, 105 in note. Mr. Jefferson’s celebrated argument as to justification daring the war. Interest is not a part of the debt, bat something added to the debt by way of damage for the detention of it. Cites 2 Salk. 622, 623. See Doug. 376. Vin. ab. Interest. 6 Litt. 23 0. See 4 Dali. 286,7. ..The claim of interest was formerly strictly dealt with, and allowed only .in the case of a note; but the law, gradually accommodating itself to common sense and common honesty, gave interest on money lent, on liquidated balances, and even for goods, sold and delivered, where the usual credit is expired; money detained, which ought to be pakTover, and during the continuance, as well as before,'the commencement of a suit. See 1 Dali. 349. 1 Fr. Ves. 63. 1 Ves. 310. 3 Bro. Ch. 463. Doug.-300. 2 Ves. Jr. 300. 14 Vin. abr. 460, where money due is retained against the declared will of the creditor, and demanded, and refused, or neglected to be paid; the legal compensation ought to be allowed. See l'Camp. 50.

Motion discharged.