Case Name: STANDARD GROCERY COMPANY v. C. D. TAYLOR & CO.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1917-12-12
Citations: 175 N.C. 37
Docket Number: 
Parties: STANDARD GROCERY COMPANY v. C. D. TAYLOR & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 37–38

Head Matter:
STANDARD GROCERY COMPANY v. C. D. TAYLOR & CO.
(Filed 12 December, 1917.)
Vendor and Purchaser — Contracts—Interest—Payment—Damages—Statutes.
Where the contract of sale of merchandise provides for the payment of interest on past due bills, the interest is regarded as the same as the principal debt, and a payment of the principal alone will not discharge the claim unless accepted in satisfaction of the entire debt (Revisal, sec. 859), there being a distinction between this and the principle applicable where an interest charge is imposed by way of damages for failure to pay the principal sum when due, and the payment of the principal “will bar an action for the interest.” King v. Phillips, 95 N. C., 245, cited as controlling.
Civil ACTION, tried on appeal from a justice’s court before Ferguson, J., and a jury, at Spring Term, 1917, of Watauga.
Tbe action was to recover an amount of interest claimed to be due on an account for goods sold and delivered, tbe principal money having been closed by defendant’s notes, which were subsequently paid. Tbe facts relevant to closing account by defendant’s notes for principal are stated in case on appeal as follows:
“On 30 October, 1914, defendant owed to plaintiff the sum of $1,485.96 as tbe principal on past due bills and two or three bills which would mature some time during tbe month of November thereafter; and on said 30 October, 1914, defendant O. D. Taylor & Co. executed to plaintiff five notes at Yalle Cruces, N. 0., in tbe plaintiff’s absence, tbe said plaintiff being at Elizabetbton, Tenn.; five notes for tbe aggregate sum of tbe principal, $1,485;96, which notes were afterwards paid.”
Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $86.59 and interest accrued on account, and defendant excepted and appealed.
John U. Bingham and E. 8. Coffey for plaintiff. ■
L. D. Lowe and F. A. Linney for defendant.

Opinion:
Hoke, J.
Tbe decisions in this State are to tbe effect that, when interest on a moneyed demand is stipulated for as a part of tbe agreement, it is as much a part of tbe debt as tbe principal money, and a payment of tbe principal will not annul tbe claim for tbe interest unless such payment Has been received and accepted in satisfaction of tbe entire claim as provided for in section 859 of tbe Revisal. When there is no agreement for interest, and tbe charge is imposed by way of damages for failure to pay tbe principal sum when due, tbe payment of tbe principal is held to "bar an action for tbe interest." This distinction is clearly pointed out and approved in King v. Phillips, 95 N. C., 245, and, on tbe record, we consider that case as decisive of tbe present appeal.
There was evidence on tbe part of plaintiff tending to show that this account was made for goods sold and delivered; that tbe contract between tbe parties was that on bills paid at maturity there should be a discount of 1 per cent and on bills past due there should be an interest charge at tbe rate of 6 per cent.
There was evidence of defendant to tbe contrary, but tbe jury have accepted plaintiff's version of tbe matter, and, under tbe authority cited, tbe recovery in bis favor must be upheld.
No error.