Case ID: blackf_3/html/0401-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wernwag and Others v. Mothershead and Another, in Error.
    DEBT on'a promissory note given by the plaintiffs in error to the defendants in error as follows: — “$432. Eight weeks from date, we will pay Mothershead and Foster four hundred and thirty-two dollars, and, if not paid when due, we will pay five dollars interest per week until paid. December 11th, 1832.”
    
      The declaration described the note correctly and concluded as follows: — “And although the said sum of money specified in the said note hath, according to the tenor and effect thereof, lone since been due and payable, nevertheless, the said de- ° A J ' * fendants, though often requested, &c. have not paid the same or any part thereof to the plaintiffs, but have hitherto wholly neglected and refused to pay the same. Wherefore, &c. Damage 300 dollars.”
    
      Held, on demurrer, that the assignment of the breach in the declaration, was sufficient to authorise a recovery not only of the principal debt, but also of the interest due on the note; a special averment of the non-payment of the interest, not being essential to a recovery of the interest.
    
      Held, also, that the promissory note in question, on default of payment when due, drew interest at the rate specified in the note from the time it became due, and not from the date of the note .
    
      
       Vide Tyler et al. v. Denson, ante, p. 347, and note (2).