The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-06-30

eoaasel has cited one, but have been unable
TO lind the laws u Wisconsin; however Che 70.
pealng act which | cite eleArs the subject Of any
doubts. and lcavsa the present interest act ~
the only statute lAW In force on the question of
interest. at the date Of this note.
The TIVE sections which compose this chap
ter on interest, stand distinct from, and indie.
pendent Of each other, and either could bc OPP.
erative alone. The declaration in the fret zee.
ton. that amy rate Of interest agreed upon by
parties in contract, specifying the same In wri.
ting, shall be legal and valid" 10 merely do.
claratory Of what would be law II nothing was
said on the subject. but Imposes the condition
that the contract shall be In writing. 40 We
SEQ that the only change II makes Ia the natu-
raj right TO contract for interest, 10 that the
contract shall be In writing. suppose therefore
10 test the independency of the two sections,
that the second one had not been enacted, and
the trst one stood alone, In this case II .
contract should be made which simply con.
tanned = stipulation TO draw interest, without
any rate being specified, II would be like any
other contract uhecrtain In Its terms, and would
draw no interest, because tho Law u Interest
required fas rate 10 be expressed In writing,
but aftrr breach, there would be no difficulty
Ia recovering damages because the current
Na,ac OF money can always he readily ascer.
tanned by proof. AMI such value would be the
measure Of damages
Suppose again that . contract should DO
made t,hs first section standing alone) In which
\ rate Of interest was specified In writing, and
= breach be made by the promisor what
would he the measure ot damsgeAf The courts
would say the law has pc, mtted the contract.
- parties 10 iiA rate II Interest 10 suit them.
selves. aud declared any rate 80 fixed IL be
illegal aud valid" In y state whore the law
likes the rate Of interest, u measures the dAa.
ages by that rate, In this state there IL no
legal rate OF interest except such ~ the parties
agree upon, aud by SIMILAR reasoning that rate
should control the Measure Of damages ~ he.
ing standard of the value Of money adopted
by the parties to govern the pat ticular contract
III all it- respects, ~ thoroughly, as statutory
standard would produce the same effect.
section Two stood alone upon the statute
book. parties would have the same right 70
contract Tor interest ~ they nov possess, and
the onl, difference Ia the law would be that
the contract would be valid without writing,
aud " no rate 0f iaterest WAS agreed upon,
seven per cent would be tho rata of interest,"
~ well ss the measure Of damages on q breach
Hut Il the contract rpsciheda particular rate
of interest, say three per cent. per month, and
a dsiaut should be made IN the payment, what
would he the measure ri damages Certsinly
not seven per cent. because W. have shown
that u IL th" rate OF interest, either statutory,
~ agtced which governs the measure ii dam.
ages after default. and the second section 81.
prsssiy declares that II 10 imperative Ia tho
matter Of interest ~ concerns any contract
ssquontiy Il msst be equally imperative upon
the measure Ut damages on the breach u such
contract. lts own words separate IL entire.
ly from any contract that specifics II. own rate
81 interest, and c0ninr its influence strictly 70
those cases where +" no rate VI Interest Ia agreed
upon, Or specified In = note, or other con
tract -
Where . contract bears interest, aud the rate
10 agreed upon aud specih In writing, II falls
within tho aist section OF the interest statute,
and must be- controlled in all iiH aspects by that
| -rotion. and =. " there was no other provision
| Of Law on tho subject, because the ond sec.
ton refers TO contracts 0f another, and diner.
| ent nature, Ia wit contracts where I" no rate
| Of interest IL agreed upon or specined.' And
| gu the either hand, whsfo :" no rate Of interest
| agreed upon or specified. In y motto OF other
| contract" u falls within the second section
aud beats seven per oentnm per annum. and IL
| equally nee from any tnfiuence Whatever from
section one, which Is confined to totally dif.
| isreDt class ~ instruments. ] think there can
| he very little doubt that tho iva sections arc
wholly indepe dent of each other. and that =
contract which by ia nature falls within the
first sauno, be influenced by the last, and u,es
ro,a.
| II B. urged that seven per cent IL the gensr.
| nj rate ~ intsf.st established by law and that
! the right 10 contract Tor y different rate 10 the
| exception, and that therefore the general rate
| Ia ~ control tho measure VI damages but II
seems that tho inotr consistent view Of the
| statute, il, that u intended TO announce an era
! 81 perfect freedom IN 1ioncy dealings. Ia re-
move all restraints upon the value 0i money,
| aud throw the whole subject open 10 co tract;
aud that the second section WAS enacted meta'
! iy Ia cover those eases 81 implied contracts to
| pay interest. aud others Ia which Il was ex.
| pressed, but no rate named, and without which
! provision the statutes would have lacked sym.
metry aud completeness. The emnbei patton Of
! money Wa the aiia and object u the statute,
aud the seven per cent. elau,e Was 10 provide
Tor cases who're parties failed 10 avail them,
selves Of tn. general privilege.
The only elect that liked rate Of interest by
siatnis, has upon the ate 81 damages upon the
| breach Of money co trast, IL, that II furnishes
tbe courts with \ standard value OF money,
which standard ~ arbitrarily applied ~ The
measure 81 damages In all such cases There.
| fore where there ~ no sgeh liked rate Of inter.
est. nor standard value Of money by statute,
tbc courts must look Ia some other rule 10 ap.
ply M MEASURE Of damages aud II would sseia
| by far the most reasonable. 10 harmony with
| precedent principles, and consistent with the
! monetary freedom iDaugufatvd by the rtAtutss
| to adopt such STANDARD value ~ money as the
contracting parties have by virtue Of the stat
u,ss liked upon for themselves. and not one
| which Il vas the principal object Of the statute
10 abolish. The rate Of interest by lar con.
| uolled the damages before the statute the
rate ~ interest by fonfy art snder the statutes,
should perform the Office.
| Hut We are not without the light 81 judicial
Interpretation upon this statute by our swn
courts. 10 tbs ease Of Wakefield v. Brs wster,
PMinuesots H. 3b2. the supreme Court u the
lat. Territory Of Minnesota, gave the statute
The same construction, with the exception that
they cell the damages which they allow after
maturity Of the note inftrsa Their views on
the statsts, however. are the same our own.
The fact that their d.eision has been made
for over two years, and stood a. an ibtsrprsts
too Of tbs statute on this point. wosld he ,
| very strong argument with this Court " hold
the same way even II II had entertained doubts
~ tbs c0rrectbess u the reasoning, which We
do not. Stability Ia decision IL Of tho utmost
importance 10 the progress and we'll being Of .
commercial community, sDd We viii always
regard IL ~ weigbty consideration In the de-
| termination u any question.
The court below erred 10 allowing the plain
IN 10 rssovsr the increased rate OF iute rest 81
damages, and also In allowing the compound
| interest stipulated in the note.
The tras rate Of damages should have been
! the princ "a Al suin OF the note Nth intrfest nj