Case ID: scl_14/html/0480-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "f\\ ott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarah C. Wakefield Adm'rx. vs. John Beckley Exo'r Mary Wilson.
    On a bond conditioned to pay several sums by different instalments “without interest* Out with interest if not punctually paid* the money not having been punctually paid, it was held, that interest was recoverable from the dale of the bond, and not from the time the instalments respectively became due; and the penally became forfeited by the nonpayment of the first instalment.
    Tried before his honor Judge James, at Barnwell, April term, 1826.
    This was a rule on the sheriff to shew cause why hell ad not made the money oil a writ of fieri facias- in this case.
    The question decided by the court arose on the construction of the condition of the bond upon which the judgment was entered up.
    The bond was in the usual form, penalty $3114 with a condition as follows:
    
      i( The condition of the above obligation is such, that the above bound Mary E. Wilson, her heirs, &ie. shall pay or cause to be paid unto the above named Martha Cannon, or to 
      her attorney, &c. the sum of $519, on or before the first January 1810, and the sum of $519, on or before the first January, 1811, and lastly the sum of $519, on or before the first January 1812, without interest but with interest, if not punctually paid, then this obligation to be void, &c.” Judgment was confessed the 13th February 1824, in the following words.
    “ i admit that the writing obligatory within mentioned is the deed of Mary E. Wilson, deceased, and confess judgment lor ten cents damages.
    
      John Bee'¿ley Ex’or. of Mary E. Wilson.”
    It was admitted that the money had not been punctually paid, no payment having been made before 1816, and a balance being still due on the part of the defendant, who appeared for the sheriff. It was contended that the several installments bore interest only from the time they respectively became due; and on the part of the plaintiff it was argued that the money not being punctually paid, interest was due from the date of the bond.
    His honour the circuit judge was of opinion that interest was only to be calculated from the time the installments became due, and discharged the rule.
    This was a motion to reverse the order of- the circuit court, on the ground that the money not having been punctually paid, according to the condition of the bond, and the intention of the parties, interest ought to be calculated from the date.
   f\ ott, J.

The principle involved in this case was settléd in the case of the Exo'rs. of Satterwhite vs. M‘Kie, (Harper’s Rep. 397.) in this court. That was an action on a note of hand in which the defendant agreed, that if he failed to pay the note at the time it fell due, he would pay interest from the date. The court held that he was liable to pay the interest according to his contract.

This is a stronger case; for the penalty became forfeited by the nonpayment of the first installment. And he could he exonerated only by paying up the principle and interest.

Patterson for the motion.

Wardlaw contra.

The decision must therefore be reversed and the sheriff must proceed to collect the balance due on the execution.