The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-04
LHoAL INTHLxroHNcn
A Ousstisn of Compound Interest.

Supreme Court at Nfsi Prius-Judge SharS,oood
This morning Judge Sharswood, in the case OF
Sine VS.. Norris, sur motion for new trial and re-
served point, delivered the following important and
interesting decision:-
This case brisiles with curious and novel ques-
tions. Whether an agreement for compounding in
terett in promssory note destroys its character as
negotiable paper-a question upon which much may
be said in the light OF our cases, Overton Tyler
Barr, 346: Patterson vs.. PoindeXter, W. S,
227; ana whether alteration yods the note in
the hands of tOnd ride holder when the note leaves
the hands OF the maker in such a condition as TO
make the alteration not discernable by inspection
with ordinary care, are among them. do not pro-
pose to discuss these subjects, because there s a
point upon which l prefer TO rest this ease,
as it leads TO Judgment which think does justice
II is not to be denied that by the statute law OF Cali
foTna, where the note III suit was executed, the
parties may agree to any rate OF interest and also
that 1t shall be compounded and added to and be-
come part OF the principal from time to time. But
1t does not follow that contract may not be made
at such rate and upon such terms as TO compound
ing as will he unconsciOnabe that even court OF
law Will not enforce 1t-of which we have an in
stance OF James VS.. Morgan, LeYintz, III, deci-
sion by Sir Robert Hy de in 1863 Which has always
since been approved. But courts OF equity do not
hesitate to give relief whenever the contract appears
and aggressive story Eq., sec 3Sl,
and cases there cited. All courts in
Pennsylvania are courts OF equity, whether proceed
ing by bill or action of law. Whatever a chancellor
would enjoin the judge sitting in his court OF law
a chancellor VIII instruct jury not TO do dis con-
science, as that OF chancellor is to be consulted
and satisfied not the consceDces Of the jurors whose
province lS only uebel disputes as 10
think this contract, though lawful, an oppres-
siVe and uDcOnscioDable one which the cOnTts OF
this State ought to have hand In enforcing
cording TO Its fetter. Two ana half per cent a
month payable In advance and compounded monthly
is not merely unreasonable but deceptive.
The maker would hardly see the resut-nOt
OF a few months default-whch would
not surprise him, but if by circumstances he should
be unable TO pay for years, how enormous would be
the accumulation curing the later period or the
running OF the time! That was the deceptive char
acter OF the bargain I'm James vs. Morgan; the Hrst
shoe OF the horse only came to les barleycOrns but
when the four shoes ali taken IN II mounted g.
800 quarters OF barley. In this case claim OF little
more than four thousand dollars has swOl en- in little
more than six years TO more than twenty-slX thou
sand. On the reserved point direct the VeFdct TO
be reduced and Judgment entered for the amount OF
the principal and simple interest, according TO the
late in California, Of ten per cent. per annum.
Rule for new trial discharged and judgment on
the reserved point for the plaintiffs accordingly
Contested Elections
Court Of Common PleGs-Judge Peirce.
Messrs. O'Byrne and McCandless applied to the
Court for writ OF mandamus TO compel Common
Councils TO draw a committee OF eleven 70 hear the
petitions OF Savage, Cullen, and Laferty, cOntesting
the seats OF the three acting members stating that
when the petitions were presented to Councils they
were tabled by vote OF rs to rs, the three mem-
bers whose seats were contested voting to make up
the majority. The Court issued an alternative writ
retuTnable on Saturday next